And So It Starts. A Lesson In Insanity

[utelore]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president marched in the streets of Tehran on Friday alongside tens of thousands of people supporting his call for the destruction of Israel — remarks that have been condemned around the world. The rally was one of several state-organized anti-Israel demonstrations across the country that drew more than a million Iranians.

[utelore]

OPERATION "THEOCRATIC MELT DOWN"


In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. The 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would likely be the target of such strikes. According to the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, the spent fuel from this facility would be capable of producing 50 to 75 bombs. Also, the suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak will likely be targets of an air attack.

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities in an effort to delay or obstruct the Iranian program or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq. "this info was taken from globalsecurity and is not my writings in total."

I hope such conflict does not arise however due to the unpredictable nature of the Iranian leadership and a clear and present danger to U.S interest in the middle east I do not at this time see another choice but to curtail Irans ability to inflict harm to such interest. However I do see a serious problem that will arise in the iraqi theater of operations do to such strikes against iran.

[Gollevainen]

Well the question that comes to my mind is, will iran retaliate after these kind of attacks, whic are by all manners act of offensive war??

I think they migth. Then the quetion would be, Has Iran managed to made a workable method of delivering nukes?? they certainly have the capapility to deliver other WMDs via their chinese and NK desinged missiles. US military planners cannot be 100% certain, that such attack will desrtoy all Irans capapility to retaliate and at least in my mind, Iran would be a country, that migth risk all in order to regain the 'honour'. And if that kind of attack would occur, there isent much speculation, to against which it would be made...

[utelore]

Yes I believe you are correct. Iran will lash out against Israel and most likely launch operations into Iraq. Hopefully Isael will restrain itself and U.S forces will be able to quickly defeat such iranian operations into iraq. I think you have to look at it like cancer treatment. If you do nothing you will die However if you treat it you will get sick from Kemothearpy and it will be unpleasent but you may get rid of the cancer. BUT yes you are right nothing is 100%.

[Gollevainen]

And there is the political factor. Think what it would couse in the muslim world if US attack Iran?? Iran would twist the scenario into religious one imideatly to gain foreing support. Iraq operation was barely explained whit Saddams personal 'charm' if so speaking, but against Iran there wouldnt be nothing more that WMD..or suspected WMDs. The world will turn agaisnt US as it did whit Iraq

And there is Russia. Something must have remained to Russians tooth from the 99' Serbian campaing and thus Russians were unable to do anything else but complain, would it do now? Serbia aplied to Russians by beeing mere fellow slavs and from history, but Iran poses great sings of strategic ally to Russia, and sofar Moscow has taken clear stance on the matter, whic could be read also as telling the world that 'iran plays now whit us'. it would put russian pride into stance and there are ellections coming, whit putin declairing that he isent going to run for third period. Think what kind of political toyhorse possiple US attack on Iran would be on Nationalistic russians rumpling after the former glory and migth of the soviet union.

I have to say that I have doupts on whaeter US is going to attack on first place...

[utelore]

Yes you are right there is not two ways to spin it.....it would be bad on all fronts. However which do you think would be worse. A U.S strike on Iran or a Israeli strike. I think the latter would cause much more problems in the middle east. I think you have to look also that Iran is ran by persians that are shia. Much of the rest of the middle east is Arabs who are sunni. I dont think a PGM strike against suspected WMD targets ONLY would cause that much of a stink. granted it still would cause problems.

ON the russian side of things I dont know what the russians would do. I dont think they would resort to military action. However I do believe money would change hands via the U.S and Russia to kind of smooth over things a bit.

[Gollevainen]

Well i think its falls to US blame if Israel does the attack. They should keep their allyes in more proper check. But i dont think that the Shia-sunni division would be proplem for the muslims. At least when the attacker is US or even Israel. And arent the Shias more of ally to US in Iraq?? Attack agaisnt Iran would couse that thin line to brake...

I dont think a PGM strike against suspected WMD targets ONLY would cause that much of a stink.

well I dont thing that Iran air defence would be so 'easy' to make it happen. At minimium it would require SEAD strikes agaisnt Iran radar sites and airbases, scrambling the interceptors. Also such strike that would leave Iran relatively unhurt, migth cost big time in Iraq if iran then chooses offically back up the insurgents and would offer some military hardfare to them.

So lets hope that nothing like this would happen and believe that Iranians are sincere whit their claims of the nature of their nuclear program:D

[SampanViking]

From tonights perspective, any near term combat would set an historical precedent - to whit, a major engagement commanded by officials serving up to 30 years in jail for perjury:roll:

But does this not drive to the heart of the US (and UK's) credibility over new WMD allegations?

Lets remind everybody what these Washington inditements are all about:

In 2002 a former US Ambassador is sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussain is trying to buy Uranium for his WMD programmes. The Ambassador concludes that these reports are fraudulent and reports same to his Government.

Several months later "Dubya" repeats these allegations, despite it being widely known that they were false.

The Ambassador; a Gentleman of proberty, publically announces on TV about his investigation in Niger and his conclusions.

Six days later it is publically revealed by an anonomous source that the Ambassadors wife is a CIA undercover agent - a revalation that clearer endagers the life of a genuinly very brave state servant.

Suspicion falls on senior aides around "Dubya" and VP Dick Cheyne and testimony is given before the senate.

A Senior Judge then investigates the matter for 18 months before coming back and impeaching a senior aide of the VP, still investigating other Aides, and all with a probability of extending further up the Washington food chain.

If a senior Govt officials have conspired to blow the cover of a genuinely brave agent, because her husband exposed them as liars without shame, then this has been an act beneath all contempt and; frankly, a very good case for the death penalty to be used

So here we are then, a Govt of Shameless Liars, who lied deliberatly about WMD in Iraq. If they lied then, who in their right minds, is not going to believe that they are lying now about Iran!

Wake up USA:nono: and vote yourselves in a Government that is vaugely related to the Human Race!!

[utelore]

Sanpan.....oouch....you truley boil my neocon blood :) ..but thats ok. The only aternative for a U.S government is a bleeding heart leftist socalist style of government.....no thanks. anyway the U.S did not start this with Iraq nor did we start this with the Irainians. 3,000 americans died on sep 11th and now all nations that "Hate" us are getting there due one way or another. I dont think you can call my president a lyer when most nations of the world believed that iraq possesed weapons of mass destruction. EVEN our former socialist president clinton stated that Iraq had WMD and he should be removed from power.....anyway I dont want to get to far off track here with the right and wrongs of Iraq. THIS is about Iran who is threatening to wipe a race of people off the planet because they are Jews. NO NATION WHO CALLS FOR SUCH ACTION SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. ITS BLACK AND WHITE RIGHT AND WRONG AND IRAN IS WRONG.......cheers ute.........PS: I know you enjoy "good drink" as do I. Have you ever had "honey wine" I just had some a few weeks ago......truly enjoyable......cheers ute.

[Red not Dead]

Yes you are right there is not two ways to spin it.....it would be bad on all fronts. However which do you think would be worse. A U.S strike on Iran or a Israeli strike. I think the latter would cause much more problems in the middle east. I think you have to look also that Iran is ran by persians that are shia. Much of the rest of the middle east is Arabs who are sunni. I dont think a PGM strike against suspected WMD targets ONLY would cause that much of a stink. granted it still would cause problems.

ON the russian side of things I dont know what the russians would do. I dont think they would resort to military action. However I do believe money would change hands via the U.S and Russia to kind of smooth over things a bit.


What if this kind of rhetoric was only a payback of history? i mean what if Ahmadinejad has done that statement on purpose. Like sparkling a rethoric war with the US and It's allies. If the Us goes that way with US miliatry assets just on iran's door it would be easy for Iran to provoke the Us and to drag it on second costly war. And immagine the impact of a belliquous US in the already US-sceptic (islamic) world. That would mean a serious SC meeting a t UN and a Veto from the US to any kind of normative resolution. And it would be payback time for some unfinished business. Iraq, Kosovo, Nth Korea to stirr up.

That would really hurt the US image. Thus enabling any one to sell advanced weaponry on a low scale to Iran. Just enough to blow some limited strikes on the US armada. This is a worst case script. Now the Us has maintained an indifferent rethoric course, the best attitude to date. Nothing will happen.

[Red not Dead]

Sanpan.....oouch....you truley boil my neocon blood :) ..but thats ok. The only aternative for a U.S government is a bleeding heart leftist socalist style of government.....no thanks. anyway the U.S did not start this with Iraq nor did we start this with the Irainians. 3,000 americans died on sep 11th and now all nations that "Hate" us are getting there due one way or another. I dont think you can call my president a lyer when most nations of the world believed that iraq possesed weapons of mass destruction. EVEN our former socialist president clinton stated that Iraq had WMD and he should be removed from power.....anyway I dont want to get to far off track here with the right and wrongs of Iraq. THIS is about Iran who is threatening to wipe a race of people off the planet because they are Jews. NO NATION WHO CALLS FOR SUCH ACTION SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. ITS BLACK AND WHITE RIGHT AND WRONG AND IRAN IS WRONG.......cheers ute.........PS: I know you enjoy "good drink" as do I. Have you ever had "honey wine" I just had some a few weeks ago......truly enjoyable......cheers ute.

Utelore Stop that C*** please if you had no intentions to go to war why not allowing more time to the inspections (that by the way led to ...zip). Most of agencies had Us tailored information and even your guys from DOFA were making all war mongering arguments risible. The russians were saying from the beggining that there were no WMD in the place. Bush knew it, that was the crucial point that allowed the decision to go to war. Fact is that they called for Iraq's transparency pour la forme as we say in french.

About clinton's socialism..he was btw the moct economically liberal president and a role model for the "new left" in europe. But that's somethhing you just can't get. I call that an american particularism. you don't knwo what a scandinavian socialist government is about. Please comme to europe, live it some time and then you'll see that actually the US is lagging so much behind the Nordic states.

Any way i don't want to sound trollish...just to flat out some misunderstandings.

Edit: Golle sorry for double posting but his statements were not on the same page.

[utelore]

red...I am not denying that my nation wanted to invade Iraq for various self protecting intrests. I also believe the invasion of iraq was just and needed. I guess we can agree to disagree on our politics. you appear to be a leftest and I am a neocon. this post is about Iran wanting to wipe israel off the face of the earth and nothing more. we can argue till were blue in the face;) about various forms of government but thats why we have elections to have the govenment we want and I have that govenment with president Bush:) but again lets stick to the issue at hand which are the comments and actions by Iran against Israel.....cheers ute

[Gollevainen]

Good to have conversation in here after one months of silence, but lets not flame to each other. How embarasent it would look to others if we would jump agaisnt each others throats? Not very profesional...???

So no country brahsing....

[utelore]

Kind of interesting and newer article I have found. enjoy


LONDON, August 23 (IranMania) - Iran's main military objectives are the development of its air defences as well as its ballistic missiles, the man nominated to be the Islamic republic's defence minister said Tuesday, according to AFP.

In a confirmation hearing before parliament, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar outlined "developing and expanding the air defence system and missiles" as "highlights of the programmes of the defence industries".

The speech by Najjar, who like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a veteran of the elite Revolutionary Guards, also outlined the development of "nanotechnology, information, developing modern ammunitions ... and equipment for electronic warfare" as priorities for the defence sector.

Tehran's rapid progress on its ballistic missile program is a major cause for concern among the international community, with Israel alarmed over Iran's nuclear activities.

Iran said it achieved a major breakthrough in May when it successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles.

The new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missile, which the Islamic republic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometresmiles).

Military analysts also say Iran has developed a strong air defence system amid speculation that the United States or Israel could attempt air or missile strikes against its controversial nuclear facilities.

The Iranian parliament has since Sunday been hearing from each member of Ahmadinejad's 21-man cabinet.

[SampanViking]

Hi Utelore

Have you ever had "honey wine" I just had some a few weeks ago......truly enjoyable......

By God yes. We call such drinks Mead in the UK and is one of the oldest forms of Alcohol in Britain. It can be anything from Beer through wine through to Liquore. :p :p I always keep a bottle handy.

But to business

i) Do not mistake me for a leftwinger - that would be incorrect.

ii)
THIS is about Iran who is threatening to wipe a race of people off the planet because they are Jews

A classic victory of spin over substance, this is not what was said. He called to wipe the State of Isreal off the map and that is very different.

A State is an incorporated non-personal body just like a Corporation and these days increasingly hard to differentiate. In the old days states were family owned businesses (Monarchys) and now have become publicly owned companies (Republics).

Calling to Wind Up and Liquidate a State is simply that, a call to close down a legal entity. When Enron went bust, nobody executed the workforce did they?, same logic applies here - by precise legal definition, the standard against which all International discourse is measured against.

Re-Incorporating Isreal back in the 40's has been a monumental error, one which has cost the lives of many thousands and ruined the lives of many millions. The question is, why are we all expected to bend over backwards for the adherents of this bizarre and sociopathic Middle Eastern Cult (there is no Jewish Race, they are indisguishable in all key genetic markers from other Palestinian populations) which has done nothing but cause trouble since it was slung out of Egypt 4000 years ago?

They lost their state 2000 years ago and their campaign to Re-Incorporate it, was as ludicrous as if residents of Eastern England were to start campaigning in order to Reserrect Queen Bodicea's Kingdom of the Icenii!!!.

Isreal is a failed experiment and it should be wound up as quickly as possible. It simply is not worth all the suffering and loss of life.

On the lighter side of course, I can suggest a solution. "Dubya" has quite a bit of warm Desert Seaboard with a large River, in the South of his very own Texas. This would be a home to home for the Israeli citizens.
In addition, given their skills for building barricades and keeping people out, they could be just the people he has been looking for to go down there. Hell they could even take Jerusalem with them, stone by stone.

Hailsa

[utelore]

Sanpan, Yes Honey wine (mead) is truly a joy to drink. If you could recommend a original English brand that I could find here in the states that would be great. but back to our little professional banter:)

You and I both know that Israel is here to stay baring a 10 megaton bomb that makes it disappear like a puff of kosher smoke:) . Israel understands this and will do everything in its power to prevent such action from taking place.DING DING this is were Iran comes in and this is were the problem arise.

Anyway Yes as a matter of fact My governor here in the great state of Colorado is consulting with the Israeli government of the cost of building a fence across the south border of the U.S to prevent the crossing of illlegals. It is a HUGE problem here in my state. There are more than 250,000 of them in Colorado alone. It is Taxing our health care system and being in law enforcement it is a huge problem for us a well for various reasons:( .....cheers ute:)

[Red not Dead]

red...I am not denying that my nation wanted to invade Iraq for various self protecting intrests. I also believe the invasion of iraq was just and needed. I guess we can agree to disagree on our politics. you appear to be a leftest and I am a neocon. this post is about Iran wanting to wipe israel off the face of the earth and nothing more. we can argue till were blue in the face;) about various forms of government but thats why we have elections to have the govenment we want and I have that govenment with president Bush:) but again lets stick to the issue at hand which are the comments and actions by Iran against Israel.....cheers ute


Buddy you know me...if we have to go to war together i would cover your six, no matter you being a nazi, jesus or karl marx him self. I just understand you very much. That's the american particularism I was speaking about. You have a universalistic ethnocentric view on the world (and it's not wrong per se) that simply can be inappropriate (Iraq being the case). That's all. I just slipped offtopic, sorry buddy.

[SampanViking]

Hi Utelore

Yes Honey wine (mead) is truly a joy to drink. If you could recommend a original English brand that I could find here in the states that would be great.

Not so easy I'm afraid. Mead is a speciality drink nowadays mainly brewed by Cottage Industries and mainly sold through Art & Craft Fairs. There was a Commercial Brew called Merrydew - but I cant recall seeing any of that for a very long time. There is a beautiful Liquer version made in Scotland, made by the Highland Winneries, Moniack Castle. It might be available through the net or mail order.

You and I both know that Israel is here to stay baring a 10 megaton bomb that makes it disappear like a puff of kosher smoke . Israel understands this and will do everything in its power to prevent such action from taking place.DING DING this is were Iran comes in and this is were the problem arise.

Another highly forgivable victory of spin over substance. Isreal certainly seems secure against the status quo, but the status quo is shifting and doing so in a way that is likely to make Isreal far more vulnerable than many people imagine. Indeed I would hazard a guess that the rhetoric calling to liquidate Isreal is more of a threat than any WMD, being developed anywhere.

Politics is the art of the possible, and the possible starts with wild voices on the fringes that gradually, over time works its way into the mainstream.

Currently Isreal looks secure, its backed by the major world powers, to which it provides valuable services, courtesy of its diaspora, providing International Banking Broking and Financing services to the West and East, since the collapse of the Roman Empire.

But this is changing, new powers are arising - China foremost and India nudging into view. Both have their own Diasporas and do not need Jewish services. This is where the crunch lies. Not only will the new powers not need Jewish services, but their old clients will also be provided with alternatives for those same services. Likewise the Oil Rich Muslim World, which had no real choice but to deal with the west (no other rich, high demand customers) on the Wests terms (Supply or Die!!) also have alternative rich high demand customers (China India etc) we see this already with Iran and Sudan (and Venezuala).

Add to this the continuation of calls from the Islamic world to wind up Isreal, plus a boycott of countries that support and trade with Isreal and its natural supporters, it would be unsurprising if Isreal became to be viewed as "Bad for Business".

Isreals business declines and therefore its ability to buy influence in the West declines - it becomes a vicous circle, whilst all the time its old supporters have to decide whether support for Isreal is worth losing out with regards the opportunites of the Eastern Boom Economies.

Without Western Support Isreal is not viable and this is why calls for its liquidation are taken so seriously - IT IS A SERIOUS OPTION.

If you follow the logic outlined here, you will not be surprised if by the middle of the 21st Centuary, Isreal has become the new North Korea, isolated, paranoid, bankrupt but heavily armed.

Bet you dont read this in the Western Daily Press;)

[chakos]

Firstly, Hi guys, guess im now part of this little professional discussion forum so thanks to Dongfeng for that.

Now with the niceties out of the way id just like to make a few points on this topic. I warn you all it may have a political side to it so feel free to pull out the steak knives and pick axes but at the same time this subject is highly political and really cant be viewed from a non-political objective.

The problem that the United States faces is that as much as it would love to internationalise this issue with Iran, no matter what Iran says, the fact is that Iran is making local threats to an old enemy whereas the U.S. is making threats against a country wich presents absolutelly no threat to it from the other side of the world. Iran does not have either the capability nor the desire to use WMD against the U.S. Think about it, the United States could obliterate Iran as a country for the next 5000 years if it was to do something stupid like launch a nuclear weapon against the States or even to supply a WMD to any terrorist group.

What i just said is pretty basic when you think about it so you have to look deeper as to the real interests of the United States in this issue. It has decided that it has to gain a larger influence in the middle east as well as to weaken its traditional rivals in the region. This may seem to be in the interests of Israel but Isreili interests are secondary, they are just a means to an end.

The world has become pretty wisened up to the fact that the United States has begun a path of Imperialism of the likes not seen since the British Empire and this is beginning to really annoy the shite out of the populations of the middle east who see themselves as the pawns in this little exersize. What the US has managed to achieve since September 11 (Wich by the way has no proof whatsoever of ANY link to ANY middle eastern country) is that it has united the Arabs like never before. The reasons for this is that although Israel has been a thorn in the side of the Arabs for years it has never invaded any country wholisticly. It has taken land from here and there, given some back, played its games and the like but it has never invaded an entire country and overthrown the government per se. The Arabs now see a real and immediate threat from the United States and the publics of these countries (US allied or not) are beginning to see the United States as the enemy.

So at the end of the day no matter how the U.S. tries to villify the Iranians it will not succeed simply because all Iran has done is talk some dirt about a local traditional enemy wherase the U.S. has a history of invading countries in the middle east for their own benefits. (Afghanistan is a different story because it was run by the Taliban and was supporting and housing Al'Quaeda.

The question the U.S. people need to ask of their government is whether this course of action is actually beneficial to them as a nation in not only the near term but in the long term. What is there to be gained by such an agressive foreign policy and whos interests does it really serve?

I pose this question to Utelore in particular. Why do you think that the U.S. has the right to impose its will on any country throughout the world regardless of the direct proof of the countries involvement in terrorism. (If there is undisputed proof then i am sure the United Nations will have no issue backing any action.)

And most importantly why is it that the United States see itself as beeing able to play outside the international rules simply because it has the military power. It is setting a dangerous precedent throughout the world that in mu view will lead to its downfall. Remember, Nazi Germany had the most powerfull military in the world at the time and it still was defeated not because of one particular act but simply because it pushed and pushed until the rest of the world realised that it had simply pushed to far and that it had to be stopped.

I dont ever want to see it come to this but it agonizes me to think that noone in the US government even thinks along those lines... The rest of the world does have an opinion and does have the ability to take action. The rest of the world also includes countries like China, Russia and the EU, countries that have beeing playing empires for many years and that have extremelly long national memories.

[Gollevainen]

Well welcome to the 'vip' club chakos, (Im planning to but an sticky introduction thread to this forum so all of you can introduce yourselfs and why partically you have been choosed to this club)

But as the political conversation has rosen to be a 'dirty word' expecially while conserning anti-US matters, I would advice to be wery carefull what to write and remember to respect all of those members that are actually US citicens. But i also trust that we can discuss politics in this forum whit these members, whitout turning into flamethreads and useless propaganda ans so on...So for this martial law state, lets 'freeze' these feelings for a while, shall we?

[chakos]

Thanks Gollevainen,

I wasnt in any way trying to make a anti-US remark. The United States has done a lot of good for humanity in the past and i am in no way taking away from that.

I was just curious of the mentality that seems to exist in the U.S. that doesnt seem to exist elsewhere inthe western world. The U.S. government has engaged in acts and foreign policy decisions that in any European government would result in the public voting the offending government out without a doubt.

What i have a genuine interest in is why the people of the United States do not think in that way and continue to support the government regardless of how blatantly wrong some of the acts that are commited in the context of international law.

That is what i was asking Utelore. No racist comment meant or intended.

Thanks

[utelore]

no issue taken chakos. I think the U.S does show some signs of "empire" with its vast troop deployments. However the U.S is not activly governing countrys with those forces for the most part. The concern with the U.S resorting to its military so quickly is noted. HOWEVER we were attacked on sep 11th and will respond agressively when WE think it is needed. As far as the U.N.....The american public at least here in the Midwest dislikes Them. I believe Koffe Anan should be arrested for his dealings in the oil for food program. I think the U.N is incompetent and will not act when faced with a hard issue. I believe the U.S should remove itself from the U.N and form its own multinational entity. I understand the above comments may seem very right wing and harsh but that is the way I and many other americans feel and right now WE feel Iran is a threat to OUR intrests and safty here at home. If Iran continues with its nuclear weapons program and support of terrorist groups the U.S MUST and WILL respond with military force....the gloves were taken off after 9-11......cheers ute.

[chakos]

Thats a fair call, although my issue is that when the United States decides to act outside the internationally accepted norm then it loses its moral authority to ask other countries from doing so as well.

Let me give you two examples. If Iran decides to attack Israel because it has built a nuclear arsenal (and no prizes for guessing what targets are in the crosshairs) then what moral authority does the United States have to ask Iran to back down, It is simply doing exactly what the United States is threatening to do.

Also, If China decides that Taiwan is an immediate threat due to some unforseen technological advance i.e. it develops a ballistic missile or some other kind of technology that China would find difficult to counter. If China threatens to attack then the United States has lost its moral authority to tell it to back down.

These are the issues that will no doubt be faced with in the future. The United Nations, regardless of its faults has managed to keep regional and superpowers from getting too close for comfort over the last 50 years. People have died and there has been corruption no doubt, but i would rather have 20 Saddams killing their own people and neighbours in lands far away than having two or more nuclear armed, powerful and advanced countries fighting a major war. Sounds almost cruel but in the end of the day third world dictators cannot seriously threaten human habitation of this planet. Superpowers fighting major wars can.

[bd popeye]

Iran appears to be bound and determined to do what it please's with it's nuclear 'power' program. all sorts of sabre rattling and posturing has and will take place.

Yesterday a dozen of the top commanders of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps was killed in a plane crash...Humm? Coincidence? What gives here:confused: . I noticed that here in the US there was no mention of this in the mainstream news. I have all sorts of questions in my mind about what happened in Iran yesterday.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5206

Iran’s top military commanders die in plane crash
Mon. 09 Jan 2006
Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 09 – A dozen senior commanders of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) died in a plane crash in northwest Iran on Monday, a government spokesman announced.

A Falcon jet belonging to the IRGC crashed 13 kilometres southeast of Lake Orumieh, killing all 15 passengers on board. They included seven members of the General Command of the IRGC Ground Forces.

The commanders who died in the crash included Brigadier General Ahmad Kazemi, commander of the IRGC Ground Forces and a rising star in Iran’s radical Islamist military, Brigadier General Saeed Mohtadi, commander of the IRGC’s 27 Mohammad Division, Brigadier General Hanif, Director of Intelligence of the IRGC Ground Forces, Brigadier General Soleimani, Director of Operations of the IRGC Ground Forces, and Brigadier General Yazdani, Commander of the IRGC Artillery.

The Revolutionary Guards Corps was founded in the early days of the Islamic revolution in 1979 as an armed force loyal to Iran’s clerical rulers. Its commanders directly report to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and their mission is to “protect and propagate the Islamic revolution”.

Prior to his recent appointment as commander of the IRGC Ground Forces, Kazemi commanded the IRGC Air Force and Missile Forces. He was promoted in the recent reshuffle of the IRGC general command that was ordered by the Supreme Leader and was regarded as a loyal Khamenei supporter.

In a statement released in Tehran, the General Command of the Armed Forces said the IRGC plane crashed at 9:30 am local time near Orumieh Airport. It identified the cause of the crash as the failure of both engines. Earlier reports cited fuel shortage and bad weather as the cause of the crash.

Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised Ahmad Kazemi and other IRGC commanders who were killed in the incident. He said the armed forces “must become symbols of resilience and honour by awaiting the return of the Mahdi [the Shiite messiah] and obeying the Supreme Leader”.

The top IRGC commanders were on a mission to visit IRGC forces in north-western Iran near the Turkish and Iraqi borders.

The blow to the IRGC comes at a critical time when the force has been given huge powers by the Supreme Leader in the wake of the consolidation of power by the ultra-conservative faction after the election of Ahmadinejad, who is himself a former commander of the IRGC. Hundreds of Revolutionary Guards commanders have been given senior government positions. At least 13 ministers in Ahmadinejad’s cabinet hail from the Revolutionary Guards.

As part of sweeping changes in the IRGC, Khamenei recently appointed a radical Shiite cleric, Ali Saeedi, as his personal representative to the IRGC. Saeedi, who will act as the chief ideological commissar of the Revolutionary Guards, has already reactivated the dormant Political Bureau of the IRGC and has told the Guards’ commanders that the Supreme Leader wants the force to play a much more prominent role in the political arena.

A day ahead of the crash, sources close to the IRGC said in Tehran that further reshuffles in the Guards’ top command were afoot. They mentioned plans to promote Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the IRGC.

Security forces in Orumieh have sealed off the site of the crash and many military commanders have arrived at the scene, according to eye-witnesses.