|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 20, 2008 22:46:47 GMT -7
How is it called a state of mind - when a person believes that somebody else wants to do a harm without any evidence? Is it called psychosis? This is exactly what Bolton argues. He does not argue that Iran has weapons, he only argues that it will have it we would not attack Iran now. Please listen to this BS here on Fox: www.newshounds.us/2008/09/20/john_bolton_an_obama_win_means_nuclear_armageddon_weve_got_to_bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_iran.php#moreBolton is saying that Iran is threatening Israel, but the ONLY thread they do is that Iran will retaliate IF ATTACKED! +++++ The same was with Iraq. When weapons of mass "distractions" were not found the argument was... but if Saddam only could - he would have them! |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 20, 2008 22:50:32 GMT -7
I wonder, why the US government, neocons and Israel are so crazto to even consider military auction in Iran in the current economical situation, without any reliable evidence (CIA said - no evidence) knowing that Iraq WMD were non-existent. here is more: Russia, China and Germany refuse to countenance tougher sanctions against Iran notwithstanding the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report from Vienna that its inspections of suspect activities and covert projects were stalled by Tehran’s non-cooperation. Diplomats for the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, meeting at the State Department Friday, Sept 19, therefore failed to agree on a new round of sanctions ahead of their foreign ministers’ meeting at UN Center next week. The meeting avoided discussing the timing and content of a fourth round of sanctions, only broadly calling on Iran - for the umpteenth time after numerous rejections - to accept the incentives on offer for halting uranium enrichment and cooperating with UN inspections. The nuclear watchdog reported that Tehran had stalled its efforts to establish whether or not Iran was developing nuclear warheads, enriching uranium for military purposes, testing nuclear explosives or building nuclear-capable missiles. Tuesday, Sept 16, the UN watchdog gave a closed meeting of the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency photos and documents proving Iran had tried to refit a long-distance Shehab missile to carry a nuclear payload. The also produced calculations and diagrams from Iranian missile and nuclear experts’ computers on nuclear detonations and how to build nuclear-capable missiles. The next day, Wednesday, CIA chief Michael Hayden disclosed that the destruction of the Syrian reactor - as a result of intelligence collaboration with a “foreign partner” who first identified the facility’s purpose - spoiled a project “that could have provided Syria with plutonium for nuclear weapons.” He did not name the foreign partner, but the reference to Israel was obvious. He also said the reactor was similar to the North Korean model. "We were able last year to spoil a big secret, a project that could have provided Syria with plutonium for nuclear weapons," Hayden said, adding: “When pipes for a massive cooling system were laid out to the Euphrates River in the spring of 2007, there would have been little doubt this was a nuclear reactor." The Bush administration released all this data in order to back up the IAEA report and tell the international community that the US and Israel were furnished with more intelligence confirming Iran’s covert nuclear projects and the clandestine partnershipn between Tehran, Damascus and Pyongyang. North Korea was also made aware that Washington had not missed its preparations for re-activating its nuclear reactor. www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5595 |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 21, 2008 8:19:58 GMT -7
Did you watch Bolton? He said that the 5 heads of states (mainly Republicans) who said in the CNN discussion that they are AGAINST attacking Iran are wrong. ALL of them are wrong and Bolton is right! here is more about discussio: edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/secretaries.state.forum/Ex-secretaries of state share advice for next president |
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Sept 21, 2008 12:41:37 GMT -7
Well I guess I would have a little psychosis if history showed that the Nazi's wanted to exterminate all Jews. The arabs still say that they want to kill the jews and launch rockets to back up their words. It would make me nervous.
Now Achmenijad is saying he want to obliterate the Jews totally. Stalin killed em, Hitler killed em, the Arabs are killing them.
The Arab bible says kill all infidels, i.e. non believers. Seems reasonable they would want defences in place in case of an attack.
And even with CIA evidence there is no real proof the evidence is correct. You go with your best intelligence and don't look back.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 21, 2008 20:53:44 GMT -7
Jim, first of all roots of anti-Israel feelings in Arab countries are deeper and come from the fact that Israel does not treat Palestinians very well. Iran did not attack Israel and does not plan. It is the other way around. here is more from today press about Israel warmongering about Iran: www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/21/make-stuff-up-bomb-iran/Caroline Glick, deputy editor at Murdoch’s Jerusalem Post and fellow of the neoconservative Center For Security Policy, is back on the Iran warpath in an article she entitles “It is time to act“. She writes that “Iran is just a heartbeat away from the A-bomb”, and to justify this claim she begins with three untruths. Firstly: Last Friday the Daily Telegraph reported Teheran has surreptitiously removed a sufficient amount of uranium from its nuclear production facility in Isfahan to produce six nuclear bombs. Given Iran’s already acknowledged uranium enrichment capabilities, the Telegraph’s report indicates that the Islamic Republic is now in the late stages of assembling nuclear bombs. But the IAEA has already told the Telegraph that it’s report, written by another neoconservative, Con Coughlin, is in error. “The article, entitled ‘Iran renews nuclear weapons development’ published in [Friday’s] Daily Telegraph by Con Coughlin and Tim Butcher is fictitious,” IAEA Spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement. “IAEA inspectors have no indication that any nuclear material is missing from the plant,” reads the statement. Indeed, the IAEA guareantees that no uranium has been diverted to non-civilian programs or even can be without the Agency’s knowledge. Then, she says that “US spy satellites recently discovered what the US believes are covert nuclear facilities in Iran.” Again - no. What was revealed (back in February) was an until-now unknown missile testing facility, revealed by commercial satellites rather than US ones. Whatever else it is it isn’t a “nuclear facility”. If it or any other more recent “finds” were, then the IAEA would be making a stink about it in their recent report, and they don’t. Iran had enough problems putting together the Nanantz cascades and getting them to run. The notion that they might have been able to develop some other secret facility just as big is James Bond fantasy stuff - those “reporting” such fantasies, often sourced from the utterly-nutterly MeK, might as well photo-shop a white persian cat onto file pictures of Ahmadinejhad and claim it proves something. Then, Glick writes: As to the IAEA, this week it presented its latest report on Teheran’s nuclear program to its board members in Vienna. The IAEA’s report claimed that Iran has taken steps to enable its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads. Of course, she neglects to mention that any such work ended in 2003 according to US intelligence, that neither US spies nor the IAEA have seen any indications of it resuming and that in any case experts say the modifications wouldn’t have worked as there still wouldn’t be enough room in such a missile for the kind of nuke that Iran could build. The IAEA report makes it clear that the Agency just wants to clear up the details of the old Iranian program, for completeness’ sake. It’s all a bit desperate. Glick says that these three factoids are why Israel should bomb Iran, because sanctions cannot stop these steps towards an imminent Iranian nuke. But they don’t need to - none of these steps exist. All this because the recent IAEA report gave the warmongers no ammunition at all, so they’re reduced to making things up. It’s because of warmongers like Glick and Coughlin, willing to bend the ttruth all out of shape, that senior US military officers are giving off-the-record briefings to reporters trying to calm things down. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 29, 2008 20:21:59 GMT -7
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/iran.israel.ahmadinejadAhmadinejad accepts Israel's right to existThe Iranian president has said he would accept a two-state solution if the Palestinians agree. So where are the headlines? Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made a remarkable announcement. He's admitted that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel. Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" This was his astonishing reply: If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums. Since most Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution, the Iranian president is, in effect, agreeing to Israel's right to exist and opening the door to a peace deal that Iran will endorse. Ahmadinejad made this apparently extraordinary shift in policy during an interview last week when he was in New York to address the UN general assembly. He was interviewed on September 24 by reporters Juan Gonzalez, writing for the New York Daily News, and Amy Goodman for the current affairs TV programme, Democracy Now. Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made a remarkable announcement. He's admitted that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel. Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" This was his astonishing reply: If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums. Since most Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution, the Iranian president is, in effect, agreeing to Israel's right to exist and opening the door to a peace deal that Iran will endorse. Ahmadinejad made this apparently extraordinary shift in policy during an interview last week when he was in New York to address the UN general assembly. He was interviewed on September 24 by reporters Juan Gonzalez, writing for the New York Daily News, and Amy Goodman for the current affairs TV programme, Democracy Now. Surprisingly, Ahmadinejad's sensational softening of his long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance was not even headlined by the two reporters. Perhaps this was a decision by their editors? Did they not want to admit that Ahmadinejad may have, for once, said something vaguely progressive?
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Sept 29, 2008 23:30:06 GMT -7
Maybe an Israeli can contribute a radical idea:
Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: September 29, 2008
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Pool photo by Uriel Sinai
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at a cabinet meeting on Sunday. In an interview published Monday, he called for new thinking.
He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.
In an unusually frank and soul-searching interview granted after he resigned to fight corruption charges — he remains interim prime minister until a new government is sworn in — Mr. Olmert discarded longstanding Israeli defense doctrine and called for radical new thinking, in words that are sure to stir controversy as his expected successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, tries to build a coalition.
“What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me,” Mr. Olmert told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot in the interview on the occasion of the Jewish new year, observed from Monday evening till Wednesday evening. “The time has come to say these things.”
He said that traditional Israeli defense strategists had learned nothing from past experiences and that they seemed stuck in the considerations of the 1948 war of independence.
“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”
He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”
Over the last year, Mr. Olmert has publicly castigated himself for his earlier right-wing views and he did so again in this interview. On Jerusalem, for example, he said: “I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city. I admit it. I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth.”
He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel’s official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel’s security barrier. It would mean a continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with front-end loaders.
“A decision has to be made,” he said. “This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years.”
The government’s public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded “with special solutions” for the holy sites.
On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: “We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”
Elsewhere in the interview, when discussing a land swap with the Palestinians, he said the exchange would have to be “more or less one to one.”
Mr. Olmert also addressed the question of Syria, saying that Israel had to be prepared to give up the Golan Heights but that in turn Damascus knew it had to change the nature of its relationship with Iran and its support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia.
On Iran, Mr. Olmert said Israel would act within the international system, adding: “Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran. We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself.”
Reaction from the Israeli right was swift. Avigdor Lieberman, who leads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was “endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly.”
He added that those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — “are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything, and they invite war.”
As they reacted to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, Palestinian negotiators said it was satisfying to hear Mr. Olmert’s words but they said the words did not match what he had offered them so far. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, told Palestinian Radio that it would have been better if Mr. Olmert had taken this position while in office rather than while leaving it and that Mr. Olmert had not yet presented a detailed plan for a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.
In theory, Mr. Olmert will continue peace negotiations while awaiting the new government. But analysts generally say that having been forced to resign his post, he will not be able to close a deal.
|
|
