Australia's leading Zionist lobby, AIJAC, has been busy. In the latest edition of their monthly magazine, The Review, one writer claims there are "genocidal tendencies in Iraq and Gaza," anti-Zionism is unquestionably always anti-Semitism, and the UN "is very much broken." Such paranoia and victimhood would usually be the cause of a disadvantaged people, as opposed to an aggressive military power in the Middle East. Of course, it's more politically convenient to be portrayed as the victim rather than the aggressor.
AIJAC's Director of Policy Analysis, Ted Lapkin, contributed to the ABC Perspective program yesterday:
"In 2003, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Lebanon’s Hizbollah movement as the “A-Team” of Islamic terrorism. But twenty years earlier I was fighting as an Israeli army officer against that very enemy.
"Israel serves as a canary in the mineshaft for the democratic world, providing advance warning of threats that later emerge to menace the West. Thus for reasons of pragmatism, as well as principle, Israel should be regarded as a cherished ally in the fight against global jihadism.
"This is a war, and we need all the friends we can get."
Brave, noble Israel is vital in the "War on Terror", or so we're told. Israel's true cost to the West is only now being realised. Take this striking opening from the 2002 Christian Science Monitor:
"Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person."
Lapkin prefers to paint a different picture of the Jewish homeland:
"Israel is a progressive Western democracy in a global region that has hitherto been dominated by cultural backwardness and autocratic tyranny. Despite tremendous adversity, Israel has managed to build a first-world nation that combines the political values of liberty with cutting edge technological sophistication."
A "first-world nation" thanks to American largesse and cynical strategic concerns. How long would Israel last without US aid? And does the average American tax-payer know, let alone approve, of how their money is being spent? Don't count on it. The veil is starting to slip.
AIJAC's Director of Policy Analysis, Ted Lapkin, contributed to the ABC Perspective program yesterday:
"In 2003, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Lebanon’s Hizbollah movement as the “A-Team” of Islamic terrorism. But twenty years earlier I was fighting as an Israeli army officer against that very enemy.
"Israel serves as a canary in the mineshaft for the democratic world, providing advance warning of threats that later emerge to menace the West. Thus for reasons of pragmatism, as well as principle, Israel should be regarded as a cherished ally in the fight against global jihadism.
"This is a war, and we need all the friends we can get."
Brave, noble Israel is vital in the "War on Terror", or so we're told. Israel's true cost to the West is only now being realised. Take this striking opening from the 2002 Christian Science Monitor:
"Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person."
Lapkin prefers to paint a different picture of the Jewish homeland:
"Israel is a progressive Western democracy in a global region that has hitherto been dominated by cultural backwardness and autocratic tyranny. Despite tremendous adversity, Israel has managed to build a first-world nation that combines the political values of liberty with cutting edge technological sophistication."
A "first-world nation" thanks to American largesse and cynical strategic concerns. How long would Israel last without US aid? And does the average American tax-payer know, let alone approve, of how their money is being spent? Don't count on it. The veil is starting to slip.
19 Comments:
US support for Egypt is equally distasteful and as destructive. But then, the US has a habit of supporting dictatorships around the world.
Ted,
Your 'facts' are indeed illuminating and many of them are impressive. Absent, though, is any mention of the ongoing, illegal occupation and the continuing subjegation of another people, the Palestinians. A minor detail, perhaps - for you and your fellow travellers - but rather important to the rest of us.
I look forward to your future articles praising the bravery of armed conflict.
If the US had invested 1.6 trillion in Israel, it would have been the best investment the US ever made.
But they didn't make it. The monitary figure was just a figment of the reporters imagination based on what he thought the cost of Arab blackmail of the US was worth.
Rather than take it as a reason to distrust the Arab nations, the antisemite tried to turmn it around on the Jews.
Typical, and typically ignored by most except neo-nazis, white supremists, holocaust deniers, islamo-fascists and their helpers, witting or not.
asdfasdffdsafdsa - LOL.
Addamo - The figures are available to you. Do your own work. As for New Orleans, I don't see the US government doing all it can, so you can't fault the paltry funds given to Israel.
How many families are 7000 settlers? Why didn't you use that figure for the 250,000 instead of attempting to plant the 7000 figure?
As for ceasing the laborious use of antisemite, islamo-fascist, white supremicist and nazi slurs, do your part by not using information that is easily available from those sites.
Everyone knows the 1.6 trillion figure was so much BS with a deliberate antisemitic bias.
Ah Ted, Zen master of the one-note, one-sided Likudnik polemic; the relentless voice of insanity. Takes me back. Did you get a woody writing that list?
Great comment, Glenn. Did you get a woody while writing about Ted getting a woody?
Israel is never mentioned because Israel is not an actual threat to any Arab nation.
Israel's weaponry is for retaliation and the occasional pre-emptive strike. As all of the pre-emptive strikes have been well justified. It seems that Israel is a peaceful country, dedicated to peace, unlike it's Arab neighbors.
Yes, Jews should move to Israel, and Israel should cease the practice of importing foreign labor and palestinian labor.
But it is not up to me to dictate to Jews nor the Government of Israel.
The palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis and lybians, among other States, have commited assasinations both domestic and Internationally. But only Israel? And you deny being a racist? Ready to fall on your toothpick?
The Liberty incident has been conclusively and exhaustively been proven to be an accident at a time of war. Except for racists like you and the poor misguided americans led by the nose in search for an answer that doesn't exist. But of course, you need to look up an unfortunate event from 40 years ago to prove a nonexistant fact.
While Iraq being fragmented helps every single middle eastern people except the Palestinians, you can only fault israel?
And spying? Israel spys to deflect blackmail used to protect its citizens, not to damage the US. But a racist like you doesn't understand that.
You must have a limited intellectual capacity to think that only a racist can recognize a racist. So sad for you.
The Franklin affair had everything to do with lying about a life and death issue to tempt jews to warn Israel about it. But a racist like you discounts things like that. So sad for you.
What makes you think the Palestine, egypt, Lybia, Syria do not have assasination as state policy? because you can't find it written? So sad for you.
The 70 dead are the result of another American spy who was able to deflect it on to Pollard, but it has since boomeranged. Too bad for you. Know one knows what Pollard did as the evidence is still secret. Which means you don't know. So sad for you.
Your non-facts merely betray your racist outlook. You only want them to be facts because it would support your racism. So sad for you.
Disagree with me doesn't make you a racist. But your particular disagreements prove you to be a racist and antisemite. As if you didn't know that. So sad for you.
Iraqi fragmentation will help prevent a civil war, not that the lives lost mean much to a racist like you. So sad for you.
Your opposition crosses the line of reasonable debate and is firmly planted in a base of antisemitism. That you can't see it is not my problem. But it is there.
I will certainly treat you as you treat me.
I also oppose aspects of Israeli domestic and international policy. I am upset with the treatment of Arab Israelis as second class citizens. I am upset with the religious communities welfare system and exemption from military service. I am upset with the beduin situation.
I am also upset with the extreme care that the IDF takes with an avowed enemy.
Ok, let's take Israel. They piss me off sometimes. I don't, for example like the way they sometimes shit on their friends. Take the example of them violating New Zealand's sovereignty by stealing its passports to use in clandestine missions. But Israel is worth supporting because of its neighbours, and what it's done to keep them in check.
Someone mentioned Osirak recently. The world owes Israel a debt of gratitude for that - which even most sane luvvies accept - although they would have screamed blue fucking murder at the time. Iran's in exactly the same boat. They don't need nuclear power. They're swimming in oil. Why would they spend a fortune developing a civilian nuclear programme? It just doesn't make sense.
Here's what I hope. I hope Mossad has penetrated deep inside Iran's administration. Hell, I'd be happy for them to use Australian - New Zealand, whatever it takes - passports or whatever they need if it helps them get inside. I hope they're infiltrating right now. I hope they're finding out all about Iran's nuclear programme - where its laboratories are, where the reprocessing plants are, where the scientists are living who are working on the programme, and where the installations that defend this monstrous programme are and how to defeat them. Then when they've got all the information they need to do the job right, I hope Israel blows the whole fucking lot sky high. I don't care how they do it, as long as they're successful. I'd applaud American assistance. An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic scenario. Some nations can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Israel, a mature democracy, is one. Iran isn't.
Then, when Israel's done the world a favour - just like they did in 1980 - I hope Iran goes absolutely apeshit. Hell, I'd *really* like it if they lobbed a few SCUDs (or whatever 1970s missile technology they're sporting) at Israel. The anti-missile defence system that Israel has developed could render them impotent - hopefully this drama is captured and beamed throughout the region, live, on al-Jazeera. I hope the Iranians realise how powerless they've become.
I'm sure the majority of Loewenstein's cheersquad would howl with rage if such a scenario played out. Don't worry, boys. In ten years' time, you'll be conceding that Israel saved the world from a great dilemma - just like your predecessors did a few years after Osirak's demolition.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anthony : the green/left has been screaming "We're running out of oil!!!" for decades now.
Have you considered that the neighbours wouldn't require checking if Israel didn't exist?
That's a complicated question, because it deals with 'what-ifs'. The salient point is that Israel does exist. And if any solution to the ME crisis you float involves dissolving the state of Israel, then I'm sorry, but you're chasing a phantom. Anyway, a country like Israel is useful for the West. The Middle East is so strategic because of its oil reserves. It's very handy for the West to have a nation like Israel to crack some skulls if they start to step out of line. They subsequently pull their heads in, we verbally distance ourselves from Israel in the process, the world keeps spinning.
Checked the price of petrol lately?
Um, yes I have. It's high, isn't it, Ian? Oh, you've got me there! However you ignore the almost certain fact that the state-owned Iranian oil company doesn't charge the state-owned electricity company market rates for oil.
one is that from here on in we will be living with less and less oil.
At current consumption there is only about 50 years (etc etc)
There is plenty of oil in the world, both in crude reserves and alternatives such as tar sand deposits - which are enormous. Technology improvements are continuously making out of reach deposits viable and formerly exhausted wells produce again. As the Saudi oil minister conceded a few years ago, "the stone age didn't end due to a lack of stone and the oil age won't end due to a lack of oil."
pumps may start running dry in less than 20 years, much less if car ownership percentages
You just invented that 20 year figure, didn't you? And you're also pissing in the wind with the increased car ownership figures. Get back to me when you start dealing in reality, Ian.
Young Adam,
You are a perfect example of how a little research can throw up a whole lot of crap and lead to some utterly muddleheaded conclusions. But, I'll give you your due - you've taken the time to write a War & Peace-type response. Which I'll rebut.
Now, Adam. About your links. Did you actually expect me to view them, or did you just provide them hoping I'll simply take them as proof that you're not talking a bunch of crap? Bad news, dude. I'm looking at them. A lot of them aren't strong, to put it generously. Okay, let's go.
The US decided that terrorism is a good thing when it’s happens to your enemy, so the MEK is getting lots of encouragement (protection and money) from the CIA to go raise hell inside Iran.
Good. It's called subversion. A lot cheaper than war, and sometimes as effective. See Contras, Nicaragua.
The same wingnuts who said Iraq would be a cakewalk, are adamant that the Iranian leadership is ready to topple and figure that the odd car bomb will do the trick.
Sorry, who said that Iraq would be a cakewalk? Links, please. My recollection was that Bush & co were talking very long term regarding occupation. Oh, or are you talking about the military conquest of Iraq? Because that clearly was a cakewalk. Also, who is adamant that the Iranian leadership is ready to topple? Links, please.
Adam, it's really not clever to invent things to bolster your case.
That probably didn’t occur to you, but you’re not running a country.
Actually, it did, and I wondered if it would be brought up here. I suspected that I wouldn't have to deal with it. To your credit, you did bring it up, and now I will. Under the NNPT, nations have a right to build a nuclear programme for civilian purposes. I personally believe that Iran forfeited that right when the IAEA exposed their secret nuclear programme back in 2002. Why were they running this secret programme when they had absolute legal authority to operate a civilian nuclear programme? The answer is obvious - they were trying to construct a bomb. Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons. Go Israel!
f this is successful and other OPEC countries follow suit, then the US becomes a 3rd world country overnight.
And you have the cheek to lecture me about economics. No, it doesn't. You've provided a couple of dubious links that speculate that if the US dollar was no longer the international standard, the value of the USD would fall dramatically, causing economic meltdown. Neither of those articles actually say why a cheaper dollar would cause economic collapse in the USA - they and you are making the economic-curmudgeonly, amateurish mistake of creating twin nexuses between "strong currency and strong economy" and "weak currency and weak economy". If anything, a weaker US currency, whilst causing some short-medium term economic disruption - would right some of the current structural imbalances in their economy in the medium term. Your conspiracy-theorising links don't seem to have a clue about the actual source of the upwards distortion of the American dollar - and it's coming from Asia, not the Middle East. Most notably, China (although Japan's central bank is also a dab hand at this and has been doing it for decades - in fact, most of the Asian manufacturing economies do) is keen to ensure a strong dollar - and a relatively weak yuan, which is pegged at an artificially low rate to the dollar. Thus it buys enormous amounts of US treasury bonds at very low rates of yield; providing cheap debt to the US government (which is why it's so keen to run up these budget deficits we've been seeing post 9/11) and also promoting the Fed to maintain an expansionary monetary policy - allowing American consumers access to remarkably cheap credit. It also means the US consumer is able to buy masses of cheap (because of the weakness of the yuan) Chinese goods with their artificially expensive dollars. THAT'S why the American dollar is strong. If it was weakened because some oil trading nations start pricing their oil in Euros, I fail to see why this would be so catastrophic for the American economy. It should also be pointed out to you that four of the world's five top oil producing nations are strong US allies - namely; Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and now Iraq. Just for argument's sake, let's drop Iraq off the list. Do you really think that Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait (who together hold about 40% of the world's crude reserves) are going to act in a way that contravenes the interests of their major ally? Get a clue, tinfoil hat man. A few links are no substitute for some sound knowledge on a subject like economics, Adam. There are a lot of hacks around, meboy. As you've just proven nicely.
A little reported fact is that Iraq did a similar thing.
Little reported fact? I was well aware of it. Now your article gets further into the business of tinfoil by speculating that the above shift by Saddam was a secret precursor to war. Evidence, gentlemen? With hindsight, we can definitely say that 9/11 made war with Iraq politically possible. I suppose you'll start claiming that the twin towers were toppled by neocon schemers itching to take out Saddam. No one in the administration predicted that event, and no one would have considered Iraqi regime change via a ground war realistic pre-9/11.
Also, I should mention that the countries holding massive USD reserves - countries like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan etc - stand to lose massively if the value of the USD falls substantially. How does this brace of nations stand as a counterweight to the resentful, scheming members (Venezuela, Iran) of OPEC? Just a thought for you.
I also note your links are old, and for the most part, stale. Reading through a lot of them makes you realise that a lot happens in four or five years, or even one or two. So many of the predicted precursors for this apparent catastrophic shift away from the American dollar have failed to materialise, like the UK adopting the Euro (chance of that happening post referendum?) and a Japanese economic meltdown if the oil price cranks up from the $45-50/barrel price they were experiencing when the article was written. Well, the Japanese economy is showing signs of recovery (gasp!) during the same period as the oil price increased to $65-70/barrel (GASP!).
Okay, let's put our military caps on.
Rest assured your wishes have been granted.
I hope so.
As I read this, I dawns on me who inspired the producers of Seed of Chucky.(snip!)
You dawns on you, Adam? Yadda yadda yadda. So much bile. Next!
Estimates have put the death toll as high as 1 million.
Evidence/sources, please.
Russia leads the world in missile technology.
And since when did Russia annex Iran - or Iran annex Russia, for that matter? Also, I don't see anything in your geriatric links that makes that specific claim. As things stand, they hold one world class anti ship missile.
You might want to renew your subscription to Jane’s weekly.
HAHA! Hilarious! You should take this show on the road, no really. Why is that funny? Because you've backed your claims with links that are over four years old! For example, that Newsmax article is dated 12 Feb, 2001! And, to make things funnier, the Bush White House's claim that "it would not seek to increase the Clinton defense budget" really worked out well for you, didn't it? With the enormous increase in military funding post 9/11, how much do you reckon went to missile technology R&D? I'd wager that it got at least its fair share. So. IF (and that's a big if) Russia - at the time - had superior missile technology (and not just in the form of one powerful missile - the Moskit), do you reckon they still do, four and a half years later? Considering the pile of cash the Americans have no doubt spent on missile technology in the ensuing years? Not to mention missile defence. How do you think the enormous discrepancy in R&D spending is going to pan out - in the favour of Russia or America?
Do a search on S-300 Missiles. Yes Iran has these things too.
So what? Iran has a bunch of SAMs. Big deal. And here's a link for you: http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news_briefs/jdw010704_04.shtml
the Israeli’s would be looking at a white flash
Um, what white flash? Presumably Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear weapons programme before white flashes become feasible.
Any ship passing is a sitting duck, so Iran could (and has threatened) to make this area impassable if attacked. Iran only has to keep this up for a week or two and whammo, instant international financial meltdown.
Could, for a short period of time. Don't you think the Americans have contingency plans for this (not exactly unthought of) scenario? It's why the Americans maintain a massive strategic oil reserve. Sure, Iran could block the pass for a period of time. It would cause an oil shock, the price of crude would spike. However, we're talking quite shallow waters here. Not that hard for engineers to unblock if the Iranians have sunk ships across the . Defeating Iran wouldn't take that long. If the Iranians somehow managed to dig in and hold their position for a long period of time, yes, there'd be grave consequences economically speaking. However, the Americans have proven that they're particularly good at Blitzkrieg warfare. I can't see the Iranians holding that part of the Persian gulf for that long - especially since the Saudis will be supporting the Yanks and allowing them to attack from their territory.
Israel's Patriot Missiles, forget the sale pitch brought on by Gulf War 1. They are redundant.
Israel doesn't use Patriots, smart guy. Whilst you were Googling up all these links you should have checked out Israel's capacities. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/arrow2/
In some ways I stand corrected. I underestimated Iran's missile technology - however your apocolyptic vision of white flashes over Israel is based upon Iran holding nukes as we speak - which doesn't appear to be the case. Like I said, Isreal would presumably neutralise that threat before it was operational. And I'm absolutely certain that the Americans have contingency plans in place to deal with the blocking (and subsequent unblocking) of the Persian gulf. Also, I'm quite sure they are aware of the Sunburn's capacities and have developed countermeasures - how effective these may be is anyone's guess. It's certainly a big "what if". However, there is more than one way to skin a cat and I'm quite sure American and Israeli military planners would factor in the potential of the Sunburn in the case of a military confrontation and create a strategy accordingly.
I suspect that in ten tears time, you will pulling down the Bring Um On posters on your wall and ask your self, “what the hell was I thinking?
We will see.
Thanks for the convincing case you made about car ownership increasing. Three words: No Shit Sherlock.
So, the 20 years you refer to is a worst case scenario? Well, I guess the
much less if car ownership percentages...
part is the worst worst absolute worst case scenario, eh?
You don't think that oil companies factor in future projected consumption rates when they state that there's about (last time I checked) 37.7 years of oil left. Funny thing is that we've used oil for many years, and the projected reserve figure has constantly risen. This would suggest that we're discovering more oil than we're using.
So about your 20 year figure. It's just more oil hysteria, Ian. Fact is that there is a crapload of oil around; I know industry insiders privately admit that they know of about 90 years of reserve. Trust me, Ian, we're not going to run out of oil before it's superceded by new energy source.
Andre,
I haven't started reading your reply yet bar the first few sentences - although I must admit my initial post was worded to be inflammatory. However, I do agree that Iran should be denied nuclear weapons.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Okay, read it. I'll respond later today. If you want to access this thread, I suppose it would be easiest from the link I posted in the other thread. I don't think this site locks threads...
Andre:
It’s pleasing to see you making an effort to actually formulate a worthwile argument, as opposed your lazy option of posting obnoxious drivel.
Well, I fight fire with fire, in regards to both worthwhile arguments and obnoxious drivel. Once again, to give you your due, this discussion is the most exercised I've been on Loewenstein's blog.
Personally, I took exception to your flippant regard for the lives of those who would be caught it the crossfire of your lovely war, which is why I sounded off.
Fair enough. To be honest, I posted the rant about Iran to excite the base here. So you're right, it was flippant and not particularly well-considered, because it was never supposed to be a serious argument. However, on a serious note, I do believe that Iran should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think it's worth taking a military option - in the form of a strategic strike - to neutralise any pending nuclear threat.
don’t believe in international law, or the notion of sovereignty
Hang on. You're hitting the emotional strings pretty hard here, though not much thought is involved. Are you saying you believe in both? Pah. Impossible. The two are constantly at odds with each other and will never coexist as equals. Actually, what is known as 'international law' is the new kid on the block and is trying to muscle in on the nation state's turf. Thing is, the nation state still rules supreme. International "law" (it's not really law - law is unconditional and absolute. International "law" is but a series of agreements between states - which any state can opt out of at will) is destined to hang around as long as sovereignty is not threatened. Take a nation like China, for example. It bangs on about international law, but its true colours will show when it sees its sovereignty dishonoured/damaged. International law will be tossed out like yesterday's newspaper as it fights to maintain its sovereignty. International law is a paper tiger until an effective world government comes along. For me, that's the stuff of nightmares.
No biggie right?
There's been worse. The Contras were brutal. So were the Sandinistas. On the balance of things, I think Nicaragua is better off without a Sandinista dictatorship. The mainly native Indian Contras wouldn't have existed if the Sandinistas hadn't nationalised their traditional lands.
We non chicken-hawks call inciting terror on other states,
I'd rather achieve the more - shall we say - ambitious foreign policy objectives through subversion rather than war. Call me a softy - if done right, less people die - on both sides. Please don't tell me you're naive enough to think that there are never appropriate reasons for country A to do a nasty thing to country B. If you do, the you should realise that the world is a slightly more complex place than you believe.
“It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Donald Rumsfeld, 3/7/03:
Yes, but are they talking about the occupation or the campaign to overthrow Saddam? It sounds like they're talking about the campaign - I doubt Rumsfeld would seriously assert that the occupation might last 6 days. Thanks for that awful link about Richard Perle - I've never seen so many exclamation marks in one article.
In hindsight it apparently not.
Oh come on. Here you're trying to have your cake and eat it too (well we were talking about a cakewalk). I'm sorry, but the invasion *was* a cakewalk. The Americans walked in, Saddam's regime disintegrated, the Americans took over. They even (foolishly, but that's another issue entirely) disbanded the entire Iraqi military. I'm finding it hard to comprehend just how much more conquered Iraq could get. Occupation is another issue, but it sounds like you don't even think we've got to the occupying stage yet! No, until every former Ba'athist militaryman - now insurgent - is rounded up and dealt with; only THEN will you proclaim the commencement of the occupation period. Up until then, it's still a hot war! You're in fantasy land.
according to Lancet, 100,000 Iraqi lives later.
A figure that has been widely disproven.
Now, onto your Leeden links. Is he the only character you can dig up who's urging Bush and co to war with Iran? Anyway, he's not. I've read his articles in the National Review (but ignored the LaRouche link - sorry, but wouldn't trust the man, his organisation or their collective paranoia as far as I could throw them/him) - he basically says that the Iranian regime is built on very shaky popular support. He may be right when he says the mullahs are widely hated within Iran. He may be wrong. But *nowhere* is he urging military intervention. In fact, he seems to be openly spurning it in one article when he says "Our most potent weapons are political and ideological, but our actions have been almost exclusively military." The major point here is that there is *ZERO* evidence of some great war with Iran in the works. Yet, all the lefties are rushing around shrieking "Iran's next!!" As if! America is militarily and financially overstretched as is to militarily enact regime change in Tehran. Fomenting revolution by supporting democratic movements within Iran sounds like a great idea to me.
And I'm not interested in dealing in your unsubstantiated "rumours". You wouldn't accept that level of evidence from me, I don't see why I should from you.
I am bewildered that someone with your apparent intellect is buying this charade regarding the NPT
I’m sure the Busheviks would have created something else out of whole clopth.
Paranoid speculation.
The US is apparently buying up anthrax at the moment and no one blinks.
Oh, more rumours? Nope, this one's got the ring of truth to it, but the anthrax isn't for reasons you're thinking of. No, as is mentioned in this New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8044), the army is trying to procure anthrax. Not for weapons, though - they are after the Sterne strain of Anthrax that isn't toxic to humans, and - here's the kicker - it's mostly used in the production of vaccines. The Army had put the damn stuff out to tender, because they haven't been allowed to manufacture large quantities of biological warfare agents since the 70s! They also are attempting to procure fermentation equipment and "sheep carcasses to test the efficiency of an incinerator for the disposal of infected livestock." Just put your paranoia aside for a moment. Does it sound like the Army is attempting to construct WMDs with a shitload of anthrax of a harmless strain and a bunch of equipment more suited to developing vaccines? Here's what the experts had to say:
They could be used to test procedures to decontaminate vehicles or buildings, or to test an "agent defeat" warhead designed to destroy stores of chemical and biological weapons...'I can definitely see them testing biological weapons delivery systems for threat assessment,"
How terrifying! They're attempting to procure anthrax in an effort to develop techniques to neutralise an anthrax strike! Why isn't the world up in arms about this? Your uninformed rhetoric is spinning out of control, especially here:
In spite of the fact that the IAEA has repeatedly stated that Iran are in compliance, Washingon has stated that this is irrelevant.
Oh really?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/11/iran.iaea/
Check the age of that report. You were saying?
Let’s start with their brand spanking new ambassador to the UN, the psychopath extraordinaire, John Bolton.
Okay, so you named him. Then you went precisely nowhere with it. What's he got to do with Iran? What's your point? Do you have one? Like I said before, empty rhetoric.
And you’ll be pleased to note that the source is not a tin foil hat reference but the American Conservative magazine.
I read the link. Sounds rumour mill-ish to me. And the guy isn't telling the whole story - he has an axe to grind. That alone is obvious.
Iranian’s weren’t signatories to the NPT at the time they were caught out by the IAEA, but I could be wrong.
You are wrong. They signed up in 1968, ratified in 1970. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm
Anyway, by your reasoning, Pakistan, India and North Korea have also foresighted the same right no? What is the US doing about it. Bugger all.
It's widely known that Pakistan and India held nuclear weapons long before they actually got around to testing them recently. North Korea claims to have nukes - that's unverified. If you want to know "what is the US doing about" North Korea - I'd say probably about the same what it's doing about Iran - working the diplomatic angle. It is only you and your colleagues who have this doomsday prediction of a pending invasion of Iran.
Go Israel? Do us all a favor and grow up James.
Awww...I'm vewwy tawwy. Admittedly I was being a bit provocative there. Glad it worked.
The NPT is not obligatory.
Sorry, weren't you championing international law above? Anyway, do, continue!
The fact is that they are now fully co-operating and opent to the most extensive and intrusive ispections of any country ever...Everything is accounted for according to the man that was 100% right about Iraq’s nukes also, El Baradei. What so the US have to say about that?
Dude, wtf are you on about? Have you been living under a rock for the past 6 months?
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/29/iranuranprot.shtml
Look at that link. El Baradei even gets a mention. Sadly, he didn't back you up as you might have hoped.
The diplomatic wheels are in motion. Iran has a serious case to answer. If Iran doesn't answer adequately - and the standard should be high due to its earlier breaches of the NNPT - then other options will need to be examined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Personally, I think it's lunacy.
Personally, I think your take on events is extraordinarily muddled and inaccurate. You give Iran a clean bill of health. Well, at least there's one of you. Iran only has another few billion to convince.
Well excuse me, but you seemed to be grappling with the long proven concept of sell high, buy low at the time
Sorry, what was I doing?
I raised the issue of economics in reference to your dilemma as to why Iran would need or want nuclear power. The absence of your rebuttal to that point suggests that you are in agreement.
Like I said earlier, I believe that because of its previous actions, Iran has forfeited the right to nuclear energy. Iran is a special case.
The US borrows 2 billion a day to stay solvent.
Who does? The federal government? If you're talking about the current account deficit, it's erroneous to view that as "borrowing". It means that capital is flowing into the country, not that it's being lent. You also ignore the USA's massive overseas assets and the returns received from them. The federal government will, at some point, have to pay off the public debt. American public debt isn't that high as a percentage of GDP. Japanese public debt, for example, is far higher.
do you think the US economy is any state to absorb short-medium term economic disruption?
In a word, yes. I don't think the US economy is as precarious as you believe. Certainly, there are structural imbalances, and some kind of correction seems likely. But economic collapse - to my mind - is unlikely. The Chinese economy is in a far more dire predicament. If you want to know more about this, I wrote extensively on the issue earlier this year. http://itneededtobesaid.blogspot.com/2005/07/china-chimera.html
There have been persistent rumors
Ah, those rumours again. Did you hear them on Dailykos or DU? I'm sure that Bush will attempt to grapple with the Saudis at some point and lean on them to make them stop whipping up anti-Americanism at home. However, to suggest the Sauds are going to go Saddam's way any time soon is unfounded paranoia.
You’ve taken the least significant point of my post and turned it into a novel.
No, you've taken the point of your post where you were out-talked most convincingly and decided in hindsight that it's the least significant point.
Precursor? There was no time wasted in reverting Iraq’s oil trading back to the US dollar. It if was so insignificant, why the hurry or why at all?
Paranoia, again! Are you seriously trying to suggest that Iraq was invaded because they didn't trade in USD?
Excuse me? No one predicted it?
I didn't say "no one said it was impossible", and of course I'm aware of Able Danger, although it certainly didn't predict 9/11, so I can't understand why you're bringing it up. And I'm sure that Americans drilled for potential massive strikes. Though I challenge you to come up with one person in the Bush administration who said "What we'll do in regards to taking out Saddam is wait for a huge strike against us, on our soil, then we'll get him. Have the plans ready, boys, it's only a matter of time." No one said that, and you know it. 9/11 made regime change through military action politically possible. It simply wasn't before.
But do you honestly believe that an energy hungry China will sit and do nothing if the US do attack/invade Iran
Yep. They know what side their bread's buttered on. China absolutely relies on a bouyant US economy to stave off economic (and political) collapse. They would never risk sanctions. Read the link I posted above for more info.
Sates will do what’s in their interest.
I agree. That's why international law is such a crock.
No they have a great deal more than that
Wow, they have ICBMs. Tell me something I don't know. Okay, that's partially my fault. I meant to say "As things stand, they hold one world leading anti ship missile." , not "world class".
Sems your fiscal exrtapolations just hit a brick wall.
Um, why? Because governments waste money? Er...no shit sherlock.
Tell me James, when was the last missile defense test the US conducted?
Quite recently, actually. THere was one in 2002. Oh, and that one last month... http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/05fyi0061.pdf
R&D funding is no guarantee of innovation, however it is directly linked to it.
The point is that the Iranians are not stuck with Scuds
Oh my god. Is that what this is all about? I conceded the above in my last post! Bloody hell.
How would engineers unblock a straight that is guarded by anti ship missiles?
By neutralising the launch sites? Temporarily invading Iranian territory in close proximity to the gulf? I don't know, there are literally thousands of ways.
Weren’t we told that Iraq wudl be short sharp and sweet?
The war bit, yes. And it was. No one said the occupation would be. Just as no one is saying America should invade and occupy Iran. You just seem to think there's this dire plan afoot. America may attack Iran, certainly. However, I strongly doubt occupation would be part of the equation, simply because the Americans don't have the capacity to do so.
We are dealing with a series of "what ifs", here. Who knows how a conflict between Iran and the USA would pan out. I have to say, however, my money's on the USA (assuming they aren't trying to occupy Iran). And I reckon if you were honest, you'd concede yours is too.
Well, that’s an interesting point (the bit about attacking from Saudi) yes. you may be right.
I think I could be. And the more I think about it, I think I didn't even choose the right country. Kuwait - yes, Sunni, noisily pro-American, noisily anti-Iran Kuwait - is in a far more strategic location. Kuwait would certainly allow the US to use its territory as a base to clear the Persian gulf and neutralise an Iranian attempt at blockade.
it seems you are flying high on faith here
Well, I can't predict the future, so I suppose I am. But I reckon it's a pretty safe bet, considering that keeping the Persian Gulf clear is crucial for American oil supplies. I'm absolutely certain that would be the first objective the Yanks secure in the event of an attack.
And with guys like Rumsfeld at the helm, who don’t like listening to advice, they have become like a dinsosaur – big muscle but small brain.
Couldn't resist a bit more rhetoric, eh?
The only countermeasure that’s up to scruitiny is the Aegies system, which I read has had a mediocre success rate, but what do I know?
Probably about as much as I do, which is not a lot. Aegis is continually being upgraded, however. Since Sunburn has never been used in combat before, it's pretty hard to predict its true influence on a battle. However, I'm quite sure the Americans have intel on it and they would plan a strike with its capabilities in mind - ie because it's primarily an anti-ship weapon, they may not use carriers or much naval force. Why would they - they now have a perfectly good and enormous landing strip in nearby Kuwait.
I don't know if anyone else is following this thread still - pity. I'm having a nice time.
Cheerio!
Post a Comment
<< Home