Europe - Do Their Leaders Have the Guts?

by roybatty 56 Replies latest social current

• 

  DannyBloem

  back to the subject,

  I agree that a lot of european nations do not have much action against nations like Iran.
  There are many reasons for this, and I think it has not much to do with guts....

  There is to much controversy within europe itself by now. It would be quite senseless to make bold statement if you could not get that backed up from other european nations. Europe should be first more united politically before it can really dictate other countries.

  Some of the european nations are more democratic then the u.s.a. This means also slower.

  It should not be a dessicion of a few countres only. This can only be done by an organisation as the united nations. The UN is not really powerfull, mostly due to the fact that some countries have a right to veto anything. By the way America makes use of this the most.
  
  When you live in a village where there are some problems with certain neightbours, the solution is to have an official controlled agancy to try to solve it. The police etc, in the case of the village. But not the bully who happens to be the strongest.

  Another question I never understood: what right do we have to say that Iran can not have nuclear energy, or even nuclear warheads, as we ourselves have plenty. Is this not a terrible (JW like) measuring with two different standards?

  Danny
• 

  Abaddon

  Regarding Iran's nuke program, the evil George Bush

  Oh give it up already. How can I take you seriously if you satarise the opposite side through self-effacement as the first salvo in an apparently serious post? You obviously have already determined that you are right and the opposite side are wrong. Why the pretence at discussion then?

  I can not believe that people are so gullible as to fall for more-or-less the same trick again.

  1/ Present a threat that isn't there
  2/ Ensure that people think if is relevent (to home security) and serious enough to warrant extreme action
  3/ Take that extreme action

  Many many many people (like most right-wing Americans on this board) fell for the bull over Iraq hook-line-and-sinker. For ages after the invasion we listened to them say 'any day now' as regards the discovery of WoMD... it was like flicking through old Watchtowers, seeing 'Generation' being redefined to avoid any admission of error. Now everyone knows there WEREN'T any, that the threat was grossly exagerated, and that several thousand Europeans and tens of thousands of Iraqis died because of lies.

  Yeah, getting rid of an evil dictator was a good idea, but we sure did it a bad way.

  Now the big fat assumpotion leading the NEW LIE (bought to you by the makers of the old lie) is that Iran have a de facto nuclear weapons program.

  Lets review the evidence shall we (sorry I needed a laugh);

  I quote from a thesis entitled "National Security to Nationalist Myth: Why Iran Wants Nuclear Weapons" by Charles C Mayer at the Naval Postgraduate School.

  http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/mayer.pdf

  Regarding nuclear weapons development during the Shah's reigeme (the despotic puppet King the West installed by over-throwing the democratically elected Iranian government who had angered the West by wanting to have more than 20% of the oil revenue from their own country) it says;

  Scholars assume the shah also directed a parrallel weapons program...

  Get this; in a period where Iran was an ally, and we were helping them build nuclear power stations, we have not one iota of evidence, just assumptiuons.

  Likewise, in the '90's with the help of Russia they developed a Light-Water reactor that everyone accepts is useless for a weapon's program, yet, again without any evidence what-so-ever being presented to back the statement up the author of the above quoted document insistes "But the United States and others believe Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons all along."

  Since 2003 claims of a weapons program have been less laughable. Of course, Iran is one of the countries that isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons; seems no one wants to do anything about the Israeli bomb, the Pakistan bomb or the Indian bomb. And where's the oil? Oh, no, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Gags aside, seems that although Pakistan and India are probably the most likely source of a aggressive use of nuclear weapons, we wouldn't dream of invading them, but Iran is under quite serious threat of milltary action if people even THINK they have a nuclear weapons program. Funny, isn't it? That South Africa's racist reigeme was allowed to have nuclear weapons and repress the majority of their population without threat of millitary action...

  But the dumbest arguments tend to be put forward by those ignoring or ignorant of the most history.

  I'd like to cut through a great deal of the thesis and get to a comment in the findings;

  As a small status quo state, Iran has no overt military ambitions beyond its boarders. Its grand startegy is to foster a Gulf leadership role while providing a credible deterrent to future attack. To support that stratagy, Iran has adopted a deterrence doctrine. Facing nations with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, Iran sees nuclear weapons as the only tool available to provide an adequate deterrence.

  So, IF Iran has a nuclear weapons program (and 'if' is an 'if' but I can't be bothered marshalling a comprehensive argument fully showing the doubts over the allegations), it's not an offensive one.

  So, why don't we leave them alone? Or do you really want more people to die because of scares over unproven millitary capabilities that NO ONE thinks would be used offensively even IF they did exist.

  I'm off to the dentist...
• 

  EvilForce

  Halliburton Sold Iranian Oil Company Key Nuclear Reactor Components, Sources Say
  Scandal-plagued Halliburton -- the oil services company once headed by Vice President Cheney -- sold an Iranian oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, say Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.
  
  Halliburton was secretly working at the time with one of Iran’s top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and sold the components in April to the official's oil development company, the sources said.
  
  Just last week, a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, whose miltary unit just reported a 284 percent increase in its second quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the means to build a nuclear weapon.
  
  Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil and natural gas development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team and has been negotiating Iran's nuclear development issues with the European Union and at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  
  It’s unclear whether Halliburton was privy to information regarding Iran’s nuclear activites. Halliburton sources said the company sold centrifuges and detonators to be used specifically for a nuclear reactor and oil and natural gas drilling parts for well projects to Oriental Oil Kish.
  
  A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. A White House spokesperson also did not return calls for comment.
  
  In 1991, Halliburton sold Libya, another country that sponsors terrorism, nuclear detonator devices. The company paid more than $3 million in fines for violating a U.S. trade embargo that President Reagan imposed in 1986 because of Libya's ties to terrorist activities.
  
  For the full story go to: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/9/2005/1402
• 

  Pole

  Here is a link to a BBC article on the Russian contribution to Iran's nuclear program:
  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
  
  Pole
• 

  SixofNine

  Dick Cheney and friends transformed a large oil services firm into a GIANT war/conflict profiteering conglomerate. Talk about a "turnkey" operation; they start the wars by selling the wrong things to the wrong people (and owning the political/military decision making process in America), supply the military with cafeterias, food, etc. during the war, and get non-competative bids for billions of dollars worth of "reconstruction" *wink wink* projects during the occupations.

  Yes America, you voted the chairman of the above company into the White House. Fucking idiots.
• 

  roybatty

  and for what i know, iran is not planning to build a nuke.

  Yeah, sitting on one of the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world and they need a nuclear plant for power. Yeaaaah riiight.
• 

  roybatty

  Oh give it up already. How can I take you seriously if you satarise the opposite side through self-effacement as the first salvo in an apparently serious post? You obviously have already determined that you are right and the opposite side are wrong. Why the pretence at discussion then?

  Because everything turns into a "hey let's not talk about the topic but instead just bash Bush" thread. Been there, done that and I don't feel like re-hashing that topic over and over again.

  Sooooo now we have a situation with Iran, Europe has taken the lead and Iran has told them to f*ck off. What should be done next?

  I can not believe that people are so gullible as to fall for more-or-less the same trick again.

  1/ Present a threat that isn't there
  
  2/ Ensure that people think if is relevent (to home security) and serious enough to warrant extreme action
  
  3/ Take that extreme action

  Well, let's see. 35 nations on the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency demanded that Iran immediately freeze all work uranium enrichment, so someone be concerned.

  Many many many people (like most right-wing Americans on this board) fell for the bull over Iraq hook-line-and-sinker. For ages after the invasion we listened to them say 'any day now' as regards the discovery of WoMD...

  Yeah, while all the left wingers' (Kenndey, Kerry, Clinton, etc) opposed an invasion of Iraq and argued for more time.....oh wait a minute, they did that AFTER we invaded and things got hairy.

  Yeah, getting rid of an evil dictator was a good idea, but we sure did it a bad way.

  No argument there, but I thought we were talking about Iran?

  Now the big fat assumpotion leading the NEW LIE (bought to you by the makers of the old lie) is that Iran have a de facto nuclear weapons program.

  Um...but Aba, it's the U.N. who's pressuring Iran to stop it's nuke program. Granted, the U.S. is acting like a pitbull tied up to a tree but it's quite clear that Europe is stating that it has major concerns about Iran's pursuit of nukes.

  Get this; in a period where Iran was an ally, and we were helping them build nuclear power stations,

  Russia - ally, enemy, ally. Japan - friend, enemy, best buddy. U.K. - mother, father, enemy, buddy, enemy, cousin, buddy. etc..etc..

  Gags aside, seems that although Pakistan and India are probably the most likely source of a aggressive use of nuclear weapons,

  Yup, thanks Europe, you guys really did a great job protecting that nuke technology.

  So, why don't we leave them alone? Or do you really want more people to die because of scares over unproven millitary capabilities that NO ONE thinks would be used offensively even IF they did exist.

  Iran + nukes + ballistic missles + extreme hatred for the west = Big Trouble

  I'm off to the dentist...

  Have fun