OK, it's war against Iran, EU agrees, time frame uncertain

[tocqueville]

The text, which is still opposed by Russia and China, does not contain sanctions but goes further than a Security Council approved in late March. It threatens to consider unspecified "further measures as may be necessary" to ensure Iran's compliance, a veiled warning of sanctions the West wants if Iran does not comply..

The draft calls on all nations to "exercise vigilance" in preventing the transfer of materials and technology "that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and missile programs."

The resolution is under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes it legally binding. It gives Iran another chance to comply prior to a deadline that has not yet been decided but diplomats hoped it would be in early June.

A Chapter 7 resolution allows sanctions or even war to enforce compliance but a separate resolution is required to define and activate either step.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060503/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_un_dc_9



This time I think it's not comparable with Iraq. The West cannot allow Iran to build a Shiite Empire stretching from Balochistan to Lebanon, which means a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia (some say that the nukes are already purchased) and Egypt... Even the Russians don't like the idea... after all it's their southern border...

[Taverner]

1. There will always be 2....

Empires always exist in two's....always, throughout history, there have always been two opposing superpowers.

By elminating the Soviet Empire, we laid the groundwork for an Islamist one. This is what the PNAC wants, and it looks like what they're getting.

Sigh...I miss the days of the Cold War sometimes....

[JVS]

9. Who was the opposing empire to the Roman Empire?

[Taverner]

17. Byzantine

[JVS]

24. Ummm, that would be under the category of part of, not opponent to

[Taverner]

33. They were opponents not in an "enemy" sense

But were two distinct entities - actually the Rome/Byzantine relationship proves that two empires can get along well without war.

[JVS]

44. The Roman empire existed well before it spun off the Byzantine section

[dipsydoodle]

20. The Germanic tribes

didn't do them a lot of good.

[JVS]

23. Not an empire

[dipsydoodle]

25. There was no opposing empire

it disintegrated. I think this was due to an Emperor named Minimus Dickus Bush..........

[JVS]

27. I dunno, can we make the Germanic tribes into terrorists?

Or were the Germanic tribes illegal aliens. Huge numbers of Germans snuck into Roman turf

[dipsydoodle]

38. No that was example

They over stretched themselves and the empire just sort of progressively imploded.

[tocqueville]

30. PERSIA (today's Iran) was the opposing empire

Sassanid Empire (AD 226–650)

Main article: Sassanid Empire

The Sassanid Empire in the time of Shapur IArdashir I, led a rebellion against the Parthian Confederacy in an attempt to revive the glory of the previous empire and to legitimize the hellenized form of zoratrianism practised in south western Iran. In two years he was the Shah of a new Persian Empire.

The Sassanid (or Sassanian) dynasty (named for Ardashir's grandfather) was the first dynasty native to the Pars province since the Achaemenids; thus they saw themselves as the successors of Darius and Cyrus. They pursued an aggressive expansionist policy. They recovered much of the eastern lands that the Kushans had taken in the Parthian period. The Sassanids continued to make war against Rome; a Persian army even captured the Roman Emperor Valerian in 260.

The Sassanid Empire, unlike Parthia, was a highly centralized state. The people were rigidly organized into a caste system: Priests, Soldiers, Scribes, and Commoners. Zoroastrianism was finally made the official state religion, and spread outside Persia proper and out into the provinces. There was sporadic persecution of other religions. The Catholic (Orthodox) Christian church was particularly persecuted, but this was in part due to its ties to the Roman Empire. The Nestorian Christian church was tolerated and sometimes even favored by the Sassanids.

Head of king Shapur II (Sasanian dynasty 4th century AD).The wars and religious control that had fueled The Sassanid empire's early successes eventually contributed to its decline. The eastern regions were conquered by the White Huns in the late 5th century. Adherents of a radical religious sect, the Mazdakites, revolted around the same time. Khosrau I was able to recover his empire and expand into the Christian countries of Antioch and Yemen. Between 605 and 629, Sassanids successfully annexed Levant and Egypt and pushed into Anatolia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire

look at the map : who wants that again, except the ayatollahs ?

[Taverner]

34. Scary thought: If the Soviet Union provided the impetus

For the US to create social welfare programs (in order to mollify the masses against Soviet promises of a worker's paradise) - will the US build itself into more of a Theocracy to mollify the masses against the Sh'ia Empire?

[tocqueville]

36. probably...

but the question is how long the war against the Shia Empire will last ? It doesn't really exist yet. I think the West will strike first and then hope that the Iranian middle-class takes over (they have far better premises for that than in Iraq for ethnic reasons) under UN controll. But the consequences could be a protracted war...

[Taverner]

39. Honestly though, my thought is to ignore them

I've always thought the US should stay out of the Empire game. Every culture who has participated has lost in the end. Even the Romans came to a nasty end when Rome fell.

It will take many years for Iran to build an empire that goes beyond the Iran/Iraq borders. Take oil out of the equation (which will happen whether we want it or not) and it will take even more years. You and I understand world history and empires, but I guarantee the PNAC'ers are all about short term profits. They want Iran's oil, period.

[Toots]

41. China, just as it is today and will always be.

Just because they have never been an aggressor nation does not mean they have no power..

[JVS]

45. China and Rome were too distant to be considered rivals

[Ladyhawk]

43. I didn't worry much about nuclear annihilation during the Cold War

because I really didn't think the Soviet Union or the United States were stupid enough to start a hot, thermonuclear war. Of course I was young and didn't think about it much.

The collapse of the Soviet Union opened the door for all these little nasty dictatorships to get their hands on nuclear weapons and some of them are crazy enough to use them. Meanwhile, the U.S. blows its wad on Iraq, which didn't have a prayer of getting a nuclear weapon anytime soon.

Is there anything the * admin hasn't fucked up????

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Good luck all

If war against Iran me out of DU fast fast.
No point after that.

[Seabiscuit]

31. And me out of

the good 'ol USA. No point being here after that.

[izzie]

3. Will we push them so they do something foolish than we can

blame them? I think so. I bet we have some people running around inside the country already

[jbnow]

32. Or worse would we do something

foolish and blame it on them.

[izzie]

47. That sounds more like it

--

[MadHound]

4. How is it not comparable to Iraq

After all, it's another illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign country based on lies and spin. Oh, and we're going to taking the Iranian oil too.

[1956]

5. Early June.. like 6-6-06?

Things are gettin real scary! Fitz come and take them all away...now!!!!

[Junkdrawer]

7. I hope I'm wrong...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1084279&mesg_id=1084279

[walldude]

Actually, according to benburch's sources they bypassed

the obvious and are going for 6/7/06..

[bananas]

29. 6-7-06 AM in Iran is 6-6-06 PM in the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1083036&mesg_id=1087362

[gimama]

11. You readin' MY Mind..?

I got uneasy feelin's, about that date, & 2 future Military 'games',
#1)Ardent Sentry, a combined US, Mexico, and Canadian 'game',
& #2)Divine Strake, testing a nuke in Nevada,that Tribal People are urging be stopped. Don't have links handy, but when I finish diggin' the bomb shelter, I'll look for 'em again;}
Oh,yeah..Once I did a 'search' for * birthdate, it came up,July 6,46,and linked to a bunch o' anti-christ sites. Eeek!I'm just sayin'.. ;}

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Only france and UK

agree.
Looks like US alone on war
UK wont fight
France hmmm FREEDOM FRIES?????

[DELUSIONAL]

8. Are you supporting this aggression? Putting forward the

bushie line of B.S.??

you wrote??? This time I think it's not comparable with Iraq. The West cannot allow Iran to build a Shiite Empire stretching from Balochistan to Lebanon, which means a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia (some say that the nukes are already purchased) and Egypt... Even the Russians don't like the idea... after all it's their southern border...

[tocqueville]

13. I don't support war, Asia Times has a similar conclusion

I don't support anything. I try to state facts. The West doesn't want a Shiite Empire, it's too dangerous for their interests.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE02Ak03.html

"Why Iran must aim for empire, and why the West opposes this with armed forced, I have set out elsewhere (Why the West will attack Iran, January 24; Demographics and Iran's imperial design, September 13, 2005). War with Iran is not the stuff of pulp scenario thrillers, but rather of tragedy. In tragedy, the protagonists neither desire nor anticipate the tragic outcome, although a minor character - a Tiresias or Cassandra - might warn them to no avail."

very intresting reading

note that the main EU powers have gone along with the US on that one (Iran). They disagreed with the US on Iraq for the tactics, not the strategy

[bullimiami]

16. if we didnt want a god damned shiite empire why the hell did we ever

fuck with saddam?

he had it all under wraps.

that is all insane bullshit. a shiite empire is no worse than the disaster we are building right now. remember who just killed 100,000+ people? remember who has the most nukes, remember who is breaking the NNPtreaty and building new nukes? remember who has been toppling democracies in the name of ...... democracy? it isnt the shiites.

Democracy heal thyself.

[pinto]

10. another snip from the AP piece:

"Russia and China, which could kill any resolution by using their veto power, are reluctant to endorse anything that might be seen as a step toward possible later sanctions or military action, although this draft does not threaten either measure."

Sounds to me like the opening series of salvos in this debate, not a "declaration of war"...

[Junkdrawer]

12. Submitting a Chapter 7 resolution with EU support is about ALL Bolton...

will be able to do after Bush used the last set of Chapter 7 resolutions to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[pinto]

14. Iran's not Iraq. I think there'll be more play here, internationally,

than was involved with the Iraq smoke and mirror ploys.

'Course, I could be wrong...

[Junkdrawer]

18. Fool me once, shame on me...you can't get fooled again.

After he couldn't get the UN to agree on an Iraqi invasion, he used the old Chapter 7 resolutions as justification.

I'd be SHOCKED if the US, under Bush, EVER gets a Chapter 7 SC resolution again. There's a price to pay for deceit.

[tocqueville]

26. Why the West will attack Iran

By Spengler

Why did French President Jacques Chirac last week threaten to use non-conventional - that is, nuclear - weapons against terrorist states? And why did Iran announce that it would shift foreign-exchange reserves out of European banks (although it has since retracted this warning)? The answer lies in the nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran needs nuclear weapons, I believe, not to attack Israel, but to support imperial expansion by conventional military means.

Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances, as I reported in Demographics and Iran's imperial design (September 13, 2005). Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington to wipe out this capability.

It is remarkable how quickly an international consensus has emerged for the eventual use of force against Iran. Chirac's indirect reference to the French nuclear capability was a warning to Tehran. Mohamed ElBaradei, whose Nobel Peace Prize last year was awarded to rap the knuckles of the United States, told Newsweek that in the extreme case, force might be required to stop Iran's acquiring a nuclear capability. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the military option could not be abandoned, although diplomatic efforts should be tried first. Bild, Germany's largest-circulation daily, ran Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad's picture next to Adolf Hitler's, with the headline, "Will Iran plunge the world into the abyss?"

The same Europeans who excoriated the United States for invading Iraq with insufficient proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction already have signed on to a military campaign against Iran, in advance of Iran's gaining WMD. There are a number of reasons for this sudden lack of squeamishness, and all of them lead back to oil.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html

[Junkdrawer]

35. So..the West will invade Iran to prevent Iran from invading its neighbors

at some date in the future?

And they say irony is dead...

[tocqueville]

37. and oil nt

[walldude]

15. Hmmm Nuclear first strike to stop their first strike? Insanity..

This time I think it's not comparable with Iraq. The West cannot allow Iran to build a Shiite Empire stretching from Balochistan to Lebanon, which means a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia (some say that the nukes are already purchased) and Egypt... Even the Russians don't like the idea... after all it's their southern border...

Fact is that if we hadn't removed Saddam there would be no threat of a "Shiite Empire". Why do you think they supported him in the Iran/Iraq war? Saddam served a purpose at the time, and later as Bush Sr realized, it would have meant occupying Iraq if we were to remove him. Now sonny boy has made every mistake his father avoided and our soldiers are eating a shit sandwich. Not only that but so far all we have is speculation on Iran's nukes. They are not even close to being able to enrich enough uranium for a weapon and if Brewster Jenning's hadn't been sunk along with Valerie Plame's cover, we might actually have the intelligence telling us whether or not Iran has been able to purchase a nuke. We created this shitstorm and now we want to drop a nuke to fix it? Yeah that's real fucking intelligent.

[sweetheart]

19. arm, disarm, arm - that photograph an essay alone

arm them some more,
bigger bombs, better guns,
war on those who make war,
killing moms, murdering fun.

A meddling outsider clearly knows,
what sort of war makes beastly woes,
crusader helmet encrusted with blows,
thunderous fool trodding on our toes.

Patriarchal authoritarian ignorant lies,
that this bad shit can only come to blows,
already borderless his wrath flies,
to no friend or enemy as his dick grows.
Grim fool leading us off to war,
what did your mommy have you for.

[dipsydoodle]

21. As long as it stays

opposed by Russia and China everything should stay cool. If the USA upsets China too much then it risks economic retaliation from which the USA is defenceless and against which it may never recover - ever !

[tocqueville]

28. I am not so sure of that

Russia plays its role of nay-sayer as usual, but is more afraid of a nuclear Iran on its southern border with risk of destabilization of Muslim former Soviet Republics...

China wants oil, that's for sure. But it could trade Iran against Taiwan.

[dipsydoodle]

40. You're second statement

is an astute observation.

[Mythsaje]

46. I made a comment yesterday that I thought China would swallow

Taiwan within the next ten years. That might be all it would take to get the U.S. to step aside.

[eppur_se_muova]

48. If ** attacks Iran, how could US oppose Chinese annexation of Taiwan?

We'd have lost the moral/political (uneasy dyad, I know) high ground, AND we'd have all our forces tied up in wars in **THREE** asian countries already. Hell, China could attack Japan, and we couldn't do much about it, we'd be stretched so thin.

[ComerPerro]

22. Yeah, but they've been looking for a war with Iran for years

back even before Bush was elected...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Operation Gallant Knight, 1980. The forerunner of Desert Storm,...

...but aimed at Iran instead of Iraq. I was assigned as the senior Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer to the Marine Amphibious Force staff at Camp Pendleton, and I knew that the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne were involved along with quite a few Special Forces units. Air units were going to fly out of bases on the other side of the Persian Gulf along with carriers in the Indian Ocean/Gulf of Oman.

Our wargame simulations at Ft. Bragg did not go very well at all...too many variables including being totally unsure of what the Soviets might do. The only scenario variant that allowed us to even come out with a draw was one in which we used tactical nukes. Carter, thank goodness, wasn't buying what the far right was selling, and called off the operation.

After 1980, tensions between the U. S. and Iran seemed to cool off until after the NeoCons took over in December 2000.

[Ms. Clio]

49. "Shiite Empire" what a crock of shit

There's only one empire on this planet, and it has bases or troops in something like 140 countries.

[JDPriestly]

50. How does that compare with the UN resolution that Bush said

let us go into Iraq? I think the wording sounds very familiar.