Article: Russia and China warn US that an Israeli attack on Iran means world war...

[boozeboxer]

We should have stayed and ruled these countries we carved out over there (France, England, European Powers, US). If we had been real imperialists I think it would be better in the mIddle east and for sure in Africa. It is too late now though.

I like Israel. The other countries can't be trusted anyway and Israel doesn't fuck around. Truman gave the Jews Israel for financing us during the world wars I think??

[Gandalf]

I cannot stand Israel and the behaviour it has been allowed to get away wiith since its dubious inception. And even now they continue to get away with all kinds of shit. America and the UK should be ashamed of themselves for the continued support and turning of a blind eye to war crimes and attrocities commited in the name of state building and border expansion.

Israel is an anomaly and that is why there is so much tension in the Middle East. Israel shouldn't even be there.

[Kirkland Laing]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

[CGM]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

So you must have a more reliable source then?

[VictorCharlie]

both at the same time might be tricky but individually the air and sea war would be over inside six months. After that it is just a matter of how much we were willing to sacrifice in regards to a ground fight. But as Kirk said..all bark no bite.

[Kev]

Damn this is quite scary and also in a way exciting news.

According to the Bible, this age will end after the formation of the One World Order and then the inevitable turning on Israel by every nation of the world.

In Revelation it talks of the Euphrates river being damned up and an army of 200 Million marching on Israel.

for almost one hundred years biblical scholars have been saying this will be the Chinese.

Also it then says when the armies surround Israel a massive explosion occurs, that those surrounding the city have their eyeballs melt in their sockets, that one third of mankind is killed and that the leaders of men hide in caves.

This nucluear war has been predicted even for the past 2000 years.

If you think I'm being far fetched as usual, consider also that the exact date of the refounding of Israel, in 1948 was predicted by scholars as early as the 1800's.

EVERYTHING in the Bible is coming true exactly as it says it would.

It's some scary shit to be sure, but also exciting that those of us alive now could be alive to witness the end of the ages.

We're hurtling towards the last days now.

[Kev]

Here's a few prophecies for anyone who cares probably just me and Bruce but still

10 Prophecies Fulfilled in 1948

[CFH]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

Neither of these articles are from major media outlets to the best of my knowledge. That's what I found so surprising about the articles, that the statements from Russia/China had been wholly ignored by major western media sources (again, to the best of my knowledge).

[Nameless]

As I study more or less into that field, the subject entirely interests me:
International politics will always be about how long you can show your teeth and how hard you can potentially bite. The middle East is a time bomb waiting to explode and this little tiny and desert place gets more destructive power than what can meet the eyes, seriously. The fact is: Israel should never have been created, before the zionists kicked in, the jewish peoples living there were getting along fairly well with the Muslim and there was no such things as the Martyr brigades or way too radical Hasidims.
NOw the mess has been created, the problem got worst: ISrael is defying the fronteers of 1967 and are occupying illegally many country, inclusing Palestine, the Golan's heights, Cijordania and are not giving a flying "F" about what the international community is saying. SInce 1967, more than 200 resolutions have been voted against Israel but the US used their veto every single time.. contributing to worsen the problem, naturally.
NOw that Russia and China's economy are soaring and that western Europe and AMerica are on the slow motion, there is a shifting in balance, at least, by a few kilos, let's see how it goes but let's all hope that nobody will go to the clash because with such size, it'll get ugly. One good thing though: Russia and USA did sign an agreement to reduce considerably their nuclear weapons stuck, if Israel would do the same, I think that the chances to see Iran giving up on their program would be a bit better, the idea why they want such weapons is beacause their neighbors ennemy have some and they feel threatened (though the ayatollah over there and Amadinejad is a dumbfuck dangerous psychopath, I can see why they feel a bit threatened by Israel on that issue).

While I agree with that, the entity of Palestine was an arbitrary western creation as well. I know this seems random, but that's something I feel is also overlooked in the whole Israel - Palestine discussion.

That's true enough, but what is also seldom mentioned is that when the west (the UN actually) was trying to stickhandle this whole mess after the war, the Arab leaders took a hard line and didn't exactly play ball, and the UN called their bluff and acted unilaterally and the palestinian people got the short end of the stick.

The modern knot of this struggle is the structure of the UN: The security concil and the unlimited veto they can blindly use. i wrote an article that will get published about it in a few months, halas it's in french otherwise I would upload it for the interested ones, I just need to make a few touches up and it's done. If one couldn't use the veto more than X times on some regions or some cases, Israel wouldn't be on the winning end as they would face sanctions. Unfortunately, the consil can wage as many vetos as they want and then, countries of that consil can protect their own interests and we have the mess we face now, especially because it gives all the flux of arguments to fill the mulsim radical groups: "- you see, the international community aren't helping us and aren't willing to do so, the only solution we have is Allah and to show them what we're made of'". Change the veto situation and on the other end, you also choke down the muslim radicals as their revendications are obsolete if Palestine recover their lost boundaries and have a legitimate state.

[CGM]

While I agree with that, the entity of Palestine was an arbitrary western creation as well. I know this seems random, but that's something I feel is also overlooked in the whole Israel - Palestine discussion.

That's true enough, but what is also seldom mentioned is that when the west (the UN actually) was trying to stickhandle this whole mess after the war, the Arab leaders took a hard line and didn't exactly play ball, and the UN called their bluff and acted unilaterally and the palestinian people got the short end of the stick.

The modern knot of this struggle is the structure of the UN: The security concil and the unlimited veto they can blindly use. i wrote an article that will get published about it in a few months, halas it's in french otherwise I would upload it for the interested ones, I just need to make a few touches up and it's done. If one couldn't use the veto more than X times on some regions or some cases, Israel wouldn't be on the winning end as they would face sanctions. Unfortunately, the consil can wage as many vetos as they want and then, countries of that consil can protect their own interests and we have the mess we face now, especially because it gives all the flux of arguments to fill the mulsim radical groups: "- you see, the international community aren't helping us and aren't willing to do so, the only solution we have is Allah and to show them what we're made of'". Change the veto situation and on the other end, you also choke down the muslim radicals as their revendications are obsolete if Palestine recover their lost boundaries and have a legitimate state.

Well, point taken, I wasn't so much referring to what is happening now is to what happened back then when Israel was formed. But yeah, the UN now sure has it's flaws and limitations. The veto system certainly hi-lites those flaws, but I'm nott convinced veto system is the problem in and of itself, but it is misused by those who have veto power as a way to further their politics. The real problem is a total lack of consensus on the politics.

Anyways, I'm interested in your article, give us a link when it gets published, even if it is in French I have friends that can deal with that.

[Gandalf]

Damn this is quite scary and also in a way exciting news.

According to the Bible, this age will end after the formation of the One World Order and then the inevitable turning on Israel by every nation of the world.

In Revelation it talks of the Euphrates river being damned up and an army of 200 Million marching on Israel.

for almost one hundred years biblical scholars have been saying this will be the Chinese.

Also it then says when the armies surround Israel a massive explosion occurs, that those surrounding the city have their eyeballs melt in their sockets, that one third of mankind is killed and that the leaders of men hide in caves.

This nucluear war has been predicted even for the past 2000 years.

If you think I'm being far fetched as usual, consider also that the exact date of the refounding of Israel, in 1948 was predicted by scholars as early as the 1800's.

EVERYTHING in the Bible is coming true exactly as it says it would.

It's some scary shit to be sure, but also exciting that those of us alive now could be alive to witness the end of the ages.

We're hurtling towards the last days now.

I've always wanted to see Israel finally reap its come-uppance. If it takes the end of the world to do it then thats fair enough. But I'm not too sure about all that Bible jazz.

[Kirkland Laing]

both at the same time might be tricky but individually the air and sea war would be over inside six months. After that it is just a matter of how much we were willing to sacrifice in regards to a ground fight. But as Kirk said..all bark no bite.

Iran is five times bigger than Iraq geographically with three times as many people. Unlike Iraq where sixteen million Kurds and Shiites were basically on our side against an insurgency derived from five million Iraqi Sunnis, Iran would have an insurgency derived from a population ten times as big, a population still pissed off that we were there a generation ago. In Iraq we fought the insurgency for a while, gave up, put them on the payroll and declared victory. But it took every spare soldier the west could scrape to gether just to hang on there for a few years. We wouldn't get that luxury in Iran. Going in on the ground is not an option unless we had a twenty times bigger army and trillions to fund it, so it's ruled out on both those counts. And what would you get if you did invade? A pissed-off population who'd eventually kick us out then be even more radical than they are now, and zero chance of us gaining anything. We've already got a war like that going on in Afghanistan. All we could do is bomb them and bombing them would 100% guarantee they'd get round to building a nuke, so using the military is pointless.

[El Kabong]

Russia and China don't want any part of us....sure we're stretched thin and all, but we still have superior fire power and it's just a FACT that people like Freedom and Liberty more than what Russia and China offer people.

[Kirkland Laing]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

So you must have a more reliable source then?

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." But the qualifiers from people who actually know what they're talking about never make it in the versions you get from hysterical journalists and cable news nuts, because it takes the scary away and doesn't get them ratings or headlines.

Here's the IAEA head :

SZ: In your report it says that Iran is gaining an ever greater mastery of uranium enrichment. Can the USA and Israel accept the fact that Iran is on the threshold of becoming a virtual nuclear power?
ELBARADEI: The question is, what can they do? What are the alternatives to direct negotiations? As long as we are monitoring their facilities, they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight.


Transcript of Interview with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei




Here's an article from the Guardian, this is one of the less hysterical ones you get about Iran :


The UN's nuclear watchdog reported today that Iran had managed to enrich a metric tonne of low enriched uranium (LEU), which UN officials say is technically enough to build a nuclear weapon.


So you can turn that into a scary "Iran have enough uranium for a nuke! story easy and I'm sure if you check Fox News website on that date you'll find one. But this is 2% enriched uranium, good for fuel for a nuclear plant (like the Iranians are going to use it for) but nowhere near good enough for a bomb (99+%).


Later in the article :


"Do they have enough LEU to produce a 'significant quantity' of HEU [enough for a bomb]? Yes, if you count the U235 atoms then they do have a significant quantity of HEU," a senior official close to the IAEA said. "But it is theoretical and they would need to use their full capacity to do so. They are not there yet. If they were to build another clandestine facility, then that would be different."
The official added that: "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times."


So the truth is they have enough low enriched stuff to power their nuclear power plant which comes online soon. They put an agreement on the table a while ago that would allow them to run nuclear power plants and have their entire nuke programme to be constantly monitored (as it is now) if America dropped sanctions on Iran, normalised relations etc. But it wasn't even acknowledged by the Americans.

[Kirkland Laing]

Russia and China don't want any part of us....sure we're stretched thin and all, but we still have superior fire power and it's just a FACT that people like Freedom and Liberty more than what Russia and China offer people.

People in the Middle East tend to get the other end of the superior firepower rather than the freedom and liberty thing though.