 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Medieval Period / July 2008Mohamed ElBaradei: 'Ball Of Fire' If Iran Attacked
"Glorious Spartan 08", Aye. Return with your shields or upon them... DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor ------------------------------------------ 'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief Jun 21, 2008 AFP The UN atomic watchdog chief warned on Saturday that an attack on Iran over its controversial nuclear programme would turn the region into a fireball, as Tehran rejected an Israeli strike as "impossible." Mohamed ElBaradei also warned that he would not be able to continue in his role as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general should the Islamic republic be attacked. If we could only get rid of him now. -- DSH His stark comments came as Iran stressed yet again that it will not negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme if it is required to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment. "A military strike (against Iran) would in my opinion be worse than anything else ... It would transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire," ElBaradei said in an interview with Al-Arabiya television. A report by the New York Times on Friday cited US officials as saying a major Israeli military exercise earlier this month seemed to be a practice for any potential strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In Athens, an official with the Greek air force's central command confirmed the substance of the US media report, stating that it had taken part in "joint training exercises" with Israel off the Mediterranean island of Crete. The manoeuvres, code-named "Glorious Spartan 08," took place on May 28 and June 12, and consisted of aerial exercises and knowledge exchange, said the Greek source, who requested anonymity. The goal was for more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter jets to prepare for long-range strikes and demonstrate Israel's serious concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Times reported. But ElBaradei said any attack would simply harden Iran's position in its row with the West over its nuclear programme. "A military strike would spark the launch of an emergency programme to make atomic weapons, with the support of all Iranians, including those living abroad," he said. He did not believe that there was an "imminent risk" of proliferation given the current status of Iran's nuclear programme and made it clear he would "not have a place" as IAEA head in the event of a military strike. The West fears that Tehran could use uranium enrichment to make an atomic bomb although Tehran insists it only wants nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. ElBaradei's comments come as Iran stressed on Saturday it will not negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme if it is required to suspend its enrichment activities. "Suspending uranium enrichment has no logic behind it and it is not acceptable and the continuation of negotiation will not be based on suspension," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters. He responded to talk of a military strike by saying "such impudence and audacity to have an aggression against our national interest and integrity is an impossible action." For his part, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Tehran would "continue uranium enrichment non-stop since this activity is under the 24 hour surveillance (of IAEA cameras). "The request to stop uranium enrichment is an old issue and does not have any legal or technical foundation," he added. In Jerusalem, the Israeli parliament foreign affairs and defence commission chairman Tsahi Hanegbi said Saturday that Western diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear programme had failed. "Next year and the year after that will be crucial. The world must decide if it gives more time to diplomatic efforts, which currently do not seem very promising," he told Israeli public radio. "Western measures against Iran's nuclear programme have failed." On June 6 an Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Shaul Mofaz, warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme. A week ago, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented a new offer to Mottaki on ending the six-year standoff over Iran's nuclear drive, offering economic and trade incentives. Iran is still considering the plan. It was made on behalf of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. > "Glorious Spartan 08", Aye. > > Return with your shields or upon them... What if the shield breaks or gets lost or stolen? Wander abroad forever? Warriors are notorious for compelling but lame slogans. "Who dares wins." Well, many dared and didn''t win. They ended up drowning, dashed at the bottom of a precipice, shot dead defending their wallet, hang-gliding into the side of a mountain, hurtling down a raging river tied to a snapped bungee cord, T-boning an SUV at 144 mph, so on and so forth. "Semper fidelis," that's another one. Fidelity should be earned, not granted unconditionally for life. What if the state screws you with an unnecessary war? How many lost their sight, limbs, half a brain, or worse to fight Saddam Hussein's imminent threat? It's enough for the other marines to walk out once the deception is out. But not, they continue to risk their lives for the dubious benefit of staying the wrong course. Bad fish. Give your life for a high cause, by all means, but not for the low cause of low-life politicians. Don't die for nothing. It's part of what people mean when they say, "look after yourself." "Live free or die." Hmmmm. Billions of Chinese should be dying since certainly they can't live free, if living free is living in a democracy. All that's stuff is fine for Hannibal to pep up the mercenaries at the foothill of the Alps after a dreadful passage, so that they can go on to conquer Italy, or a similar context, but otherwise, it is REALLY silly. Civilians need no harangue, they usually can afford to think about issues and decide carefully. There is no phrase that will make them spur into a charge, as we well can see. The President and Vice- president bugger them repeatedly and still give the thumbs-up. > DSH > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > It was made on behalf of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia > and the United States. If the Jews think that Iran is a genuine threat to Israel, then it's appropriate that the Israelis attack them. However, they shouldn't be trying to manipulate the dumber elements in the US into doing it for them. > "Glorious Spartan 08", Aye. > [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > Russia > and the United States. > If the Jews think that Iran is a genuine threat to Israel, then it's > appropriate that the Israelis attack them. > > However, they shouldn't be trying to manipulate the dumber elements in the > US into doing it for them. Old habits die hard. > > If the Jews think that Iran is a genuine threat to Israel, then it's > > appropriate that the Israelis attack them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Old habits die hard. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Okay , let's predict what is really going to happen to Iran. (1) The Neocons will turn out to NOT be dumb enough to attack Iran before the Inauguration. (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way but will speed disaster relief and assistance to the fallout victims. Then France will submit to NATO. (3) Israeli intelligence will immediately assess the French strike results. If the Jews determine that the French made errors or mis-targeted, Israel will strike within hours the installations left intact according to Mossad intel data. (4) Officially, Al Qaeda International will be outraged. Privately, the Sunniya radicals will gloat over the deaths of of so many Persian "heretics." This is going to happen because of geography. Iran is not a hermit kingdom in a forgotten corner of the globe. Iran is not North Korea. Cheers, David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against > a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way > but will speed disaster relief and assistance to the fallout > victims. Then France will submit to NATO. How exactly does France 'Submit to NATO'? France is a full member of NATO with a seat on the council.  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against >> a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >France is a full member of NATO with a seat on the council. Huh? You really do not know an awful lot about what you post do you? While France has been a member of the Atlantic Alliance since it was founded in 1949, in 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This was basically over Charles de Gaulle's pssing contest with the US & Great Britain and his desire to be on equal footing with the US & Great Britain who see going to War with the French as allies like taking a bagpiper Deer Hunting. Charles de Gaulle's actions led to the withdrawal of all NATO forces in France, the returning of all bases in France, and forced the relocation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) from Paris to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium. Since that time France has no longer been part of NATOs integrated military structure (no Allied headquarters on French territory, no French forces under permanent Allied command, no participation in the defense planning process, independent nuclear deterrence). However, this decision did not prevent the development of military cooperation between France and the integrated structure during the Cold War. France rejoined NATO's Military Committee in 1995, and since that time has intensified working relations with the military structure. However, France did not rejoin the integrated military command and no non-French NATO troops are allowed to be based on its soil. The policies of current French President Nicolas Sarkozy have resulted in a major reform of France's military position, culminating in a pledge in June 2008 to rejoin the military command of NATO while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent, but that ain't happened yet. Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." >>> (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against >>> a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > in June 2008 to rejoin the military command of NATO while maintaining > an independent nuclear deterrent, but that ain't happened yet. All very true. How does this make France any less a full member of NATO with a seat on the Council? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>> (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against >>>> a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > How does this make France any less a full member of NATO with a seat > on the Council? And on the Military Committee. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>> (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against >>>>> a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > And on the Military Committee. And Iceland doesn't have an army, but they're a full member as well... Nobody cares, they don't make any major decisions. France has the best of both worlds. They only get to play when they feel like it. I believe there are about 1500 French soldiers and a squadron of aircraft committed to Afghanistan. I didn't hear anyone saying 'You can't play, you don't have a seat on the right committee'. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. In 1938, Germany annexed Austria and invaded Czekchoslovakia and the world was silent. Japan then invaded China, Vietnam, Singapore, Burma and the world was silent. But then the world then said enough and destroyed Germany and Japan into rubbles. In 1967, Israel attacked USS liberty and the U.S. was silent. In 2003, the U.S. invaded and occupies Iraq and the world was silent. In 2007, Israel invaded Lebanon and the world was silent. In 2008, Israel bombed Syria and the world was silent. Now Israel and the U.S. is planning to bomb Iran and expect the world to remain silent. Anyway it will be interesting to watch the war expanded and escalated, and its impacts on costs of living. After the cold war was over today U.S. and Israel can attack many non- alliance nations at their own will. The U.S. once said to UN that the U.S. would go to war alone. On Jun 23, 8:52 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> (2) France will make the world's first pre-emptive strike against > >>>>> a nuclear power. Russia and China will look the other way [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. > In 1938, Germany annexed Austria and invaded Czekchoslovakia and the > world was silent. Japan then invaded China, Vietnam, Singapore, Burma > and the world was silent. But then the world then said enough and > destroyed Germany and Japan into rubbles. Well no. Only the US said nothing. Everyone else who was a major power was fighting by then. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. :> In 1938, Germany annexed Austria and invaded Czekchoslovakia and the :> world was silent. Japan then invaded China, Vietnam, Singapore, Burma [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : :Everyone else who was a major power was fighting by then. Well, no. The UK (among others) meekly handed over Austria and Czechoslovakia. When you encourage someone like Hitler, why should they stop? Then you complain that we didn't leap in to help you clean up yet another European mess. As for the Pacific, you lot didn't get into it until we did. Usual Wee Willie w.nking... Signature"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates You are correct about the history of France's involvement with NATO. > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:13:46 +0100, "William Black" > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. > Moderation is for monks." Warmongering '60 Minutes' Mike Wallace interview Apologize to the World Mr. Wallace and Return that Emmy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E&feature=PlayList&p=181923B27C885CDF&i ndex=0&playnext=1 Here is the tiny URL for the above one: http://tinyurl.com/4kgcf9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM > "Glorious Spartan 08", Aye. > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > It was made on behalf of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia > and the United States. > His stark comments came as Iran stressed yet again that it will >not negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme if it is required >to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment. Well, whether or not it's reasonable, it's certainly consistent with the way countries become nuclear powers. Would the US have "negotiated" with world powers in 1945? Do you think we would today? Half of the United States armed forces are poised on their doorstep. Iran was one of the central pivots in the "Axis of Evil" speech. One of them (North Korea) developed nukes as quickly as they could and said, "World powers be damned!" The other (Iraq) negotiated and complied... and their leaders subsequently danced on a rope. Thus, one might ask: If you were an Iranian leader, which way would you go given recent history? We simply can't attack them at the moment; we're barely holding what we have. Should we ever consolidate Iraq, though, you can bet Iran will be the next target unless they develop nukes. They don't need to hit the US mainland... all they have to do is take out the Saudi oil terminals and Tel Aviv; I assure you, the term "fireball" will be accurate. I don't suppose the option of minding our own business in our own country is on the table? Jones > > > I don't suppose the option of minding our own business in our own > country is on the table? Now, *that's* a novel concept. How to get the genie back into the bottle is another matter ... - nilita > One > of them (North Korea) developed nukes as quickly as they could and > said, "World powers be damned!" The other (Iraq) negotiated and > complied... and their leaders subsequently danced on a rope. Now that's a statement that has hit the nail right on the head... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> His stark comments came as Iran stressed yet again that >> it will not negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the way countries become nuclear powers. Would the US have > "negotiated" with world powers in 1945? Do you think we would today? The wartime development was actually a joint venture of three countries: the USA (to where the British programme relocated to avoid German bombing), Britain and Canada. After 1945, Canada (perhaps prudently, and despite being a full partner) renounced nuclear weapons; and Britain was denied access to all nuclear weapons technology - so it went ahead and developed its own anyway. SignatureJohn Briggs >The wartime development was actually a joint venture of three countries: the >USA (to where the British programme relocated to avoid German bombing), >Britain and Canada. After 1945, Canada (perhaps prudently, and despite being >a full partner) renounced nuclear weapons; and Britain was denied access to >all nuclear weapons technology - so it went ahead and developed its own >anyway. Actually, when you look at who the people really were, it was quite a bit more than that. If you named the 20-something lead scientific minds, I think you find one US citizen, two Brits, and the rest European, with German Jewish scientists and a couple of flaming queers taking the lead. Of course, their participation wasn't officially sanctioned by their respective governments, mind you. But that wasn't my point. My point was: Would the US bow to international pressure to give up its nuclear arsenal? If not, then why would the US expect any other country to do so? Now, it makes perfect sense to try; however, I do not find other countries to be morally reprobate should they refuse. Jones Eugene? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.