Freak By Night Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Surprised no one's talking this up in the Politics forum. How do you people feel about this?I'm surprised the Brits haven't gone into Iran with all guns blazing. Hell, they went to war with Argentina in 1982 over a few sheep on an island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaggerLee Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 The Brits are already fighting wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and don't need another. I'm sure the Brits will exhaust every option before invading Iran, and well they should. Pulling Iran into that mess would be a disaster for all concerned. If it had been American soldiers captured I think the whole scenario would be headed in a more violently confrontational direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 I suspect you're right; it's just a good opportunity for some sabre-rattling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Seems like payback for the yanks arresting those iranian officials just before Xmas, as well as the raid on that Iranian embassy or consulate (whatever it was) a few weeks laterairstrike to happen in 10....9....8....ominous, any way you look at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.B.E Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 (edited) Tony Blair is about to retire, might this have anything to do with it? He is leaving Britain in almost the same state as what George Bush is leaving the US House. Any co-incedence there or maybe my over-active analysis of who is really calling all the shots on a Global level. It only makes sense tactically to invade Iran. There is already British and American soldiers in Afghan land and on the otherside in Iraq. Maybe these 2 buildups flanking Iran and the regime change in Iraq was a prelude to the invasion of Iran.5 Minutes to Midnight5 Minutes to Midnight > Clock Timeline Clock TimelineIT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 2007 — The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property.IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 2002 — Concerns regarding a nuclear terrorist attack underscore the enormous amount of unsecured--and sometimes unaccounted for--weapon-grade nuclear materials located throughout the world. Meanwhile, the United States expresses a desire to design new nuclear weapons, with an emphasis on those able to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. It also rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1998 — India and Pakistan stage nuclear weapons tests only three weeks apart. “The tests are a symptom of the failure of the international community to fully commit itself to control the spread of nuclear weapons—and to work toward substantial reductions in the numbers of these weapons,†a dismayed Bulletin reports. Russia and the United States continue to serve as poor examples to the rest of the world. Together, they still maintain 7,000 warheads ready to fire at each other within 15 minutes.IT IS 14 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1995 — Hopes for a large post-Cold War peace dividend and a renouncing of nuclear weapons fade. Particularly in the United States, hard-liners seem reluctant to soften their rhetoric or actions, as they claim that a resurgent Russia could provide as much of a threat as the Soviet Union. Such talk slows the rollback in global nuclear forces; more than 40,000 nuclear weapons remain worldwide. There is also concern that terrorists could exploit poorly secured nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union.IT IS 17 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1991 — With the Cold War officially over, the United States and Russia begin making deep cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty greatly reduces the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by the two former adversaries. Better still, a series of unilateral initiatives remove most of the intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers in both countries from hair-trigger alert. “The illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a guarantor of national security has been stripped away,†the Bulletin declares.IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1990 — As one Eastern European country after another (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania) frees itself from Soviet control, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev refuses to intervene, halting the ideological battle for Europe and significantly diminishing the risk of all-out nuclear war. In late 1989, the Berlin Wall falls, symbolically ending the Cold War. “ Forty-four years after Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, the myth of monolithic communism has been shattered for all to see,†the Bulletin proclaims.IT IS 6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1988 The United States and Soviet Union sign the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the first agreement to actually ban a whole category of nuclear weapons. The leadership shown by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev makes the treaty a reality, but public opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons in Western Europe inspires it. For years, such intermediate-range missiles had kept Western Europe in the crosshairs of the two superpowers.IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1984 — U.S.-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades. Dialogue between the two superpowers virtually stops. “Every channel of communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control negotiations have been reduced to a species of propaganda,†a concerned Bulletin informs readers. The United States seems to flout the few arms control agreements in place by seeking an expansive, space-based anti-ballistic missile capability, raising worries that a new arms race will begin.IT IS 4 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1981 — The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan hardens the U.S. nuclear posture. Before he leaves office, President Jimmy Carter pulls the United States from the Olympics Games in Moscow and considers ways in which the United States could win a nuclear war. The rhetoric only intensifies with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan scraps any talk of arms control and proposes that the best way to end the Cold War is for the United States to win it.IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1980 — Thirty-five years after the start of the nuclear age and after some promising disarmament gains, the United States and the Soviet Union still view nuclear weapons as an integral component of their national security. This stalled progress discourages the Bulletin: “[The Soviet Union and United States have] been behaving like what may best be described as ‘nucleoholics’--drunks who continue to insist that the drink being consumed is positively ‘the last one,’ but who can always find a good excuse for ‘just one more round.’â€IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1974 — South Asia gets the Bomb, as India tests its first nuclear device. And any gains in previous arms control agreements seem like a mirage. The United States and Soviet Union appear to be modernizing their nuclear forces, not reducing them. Thanks to the deployment of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), both countries can now load their intercontinental ballistic missiles with more nuclear warheads than before.IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1972 — The United States and Soviet Union attempt to curb the race for nuclear superiority by signing the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The two treaties force a nuclear parity of sorts. SALT limits the number of ballistic missile launchers either country can possess, and the ABM Treaty stops an arms race in defensive weaponry from developing.IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1969 — Nearly all of the world’s nations come together to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deal is simple—the nuclear weapon states vow to help the treaty’s non-nuclear weapon signatories develop nuclear power if they promise to forego producing nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states also pledge to abolish their own arsenals when political conditions allow for it. Although Israel, India, and Pakistan refuse to sign the treaty, the Bulletin is cautiously optimistic: “The great powers have made the first step. They must proceed without delay to the next one—the dismantling, gradually, of their own oversized military establishments.â€IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1968 — Regional wars rage. U.S. involvement in Vietnam intensifies, India and Pakistan battle in 1965, and Israel and its Arab neighbors renew hostilities in 1967. Worse yet, France and China develop nuclear weapons to assert themselves as global players. “There is little reason to feel sanguine about the future of our society on the world scale,†the Bulletin laments. “There is a mass revulsion against war, yes; but no sign of conscious intellectual leadership in a rebellion against the deadly heritage of international anarchy.â€IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1963 — After a decade of almost non-stop nuclear tests, the United States and Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which ends all atmospheric nuclear testing. While it does not outlaw underground testing, the treaty represents progress in at least slowing the arms race. It also signals awareness among the Soviets and United States that they need to work together to prevent nuclear annihilation.IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1960 — Political actions belie the tough talk of “massive retaliation.†For the first time, the United States and Soviet Union appear eager to avoid direct confrontation in regional conflicts such as the 1956 Egyptian-Israeli dispute. Joint projects that build trust and constructive dialogue between third parties also quell diplomatic hostilities. Scientists initiate many of these measures, helping establish the International Geophysical Year, a series of coordinated, worldwide scientific observations, and the Pugwash Conferences, which allow Soviet and American scientists to interact.IT IS 2 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1953 — After much debate, the United States decides to pursue the hydrogen bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any atomic bomb. In October 1952, the United States tests its first thermonuclear device, obliterating a Pacific Ocean islet in the process; nine months later, the Soviets test an H-bomb of their own. “The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again,†the Bulletin announces. "Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization."IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1949 — The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,†the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.â€IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1947 — As the Bulletin evolves from a newsletter into a magazine, the Clock appears on the cover for the first time. It symbolizes the urgency of the nuclear dangers that the magazine’s founders--and the broader scientific community--are trying to convey to the public and political leaders around the world. Edited April 3, 2007 by Guest to add the timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 excellent and detailed article about 'the situation' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guigsy Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Maybe these 2 buildups flanking Iran and the regime change in Iraq was a prelude to the invasion of Iran.i cant find it online now, and i think i actually first saw it published in an adbuters, but if you could find a map of strategic U.S. military bases around the world, you'll see that they've literally been surrounding Iran from all sides for quite some time now... tick tock, tick tock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Good arguments have been made for the 1st Gulf War having been a pretext to consolidate the US military presence in Saudi Arabia (which meant staggeringly sophisticated and expensive bases), which hadn't until that point been let off its leash. Protestants of a feather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaggerLee Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Iran is setting the captured sailors free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.B.E Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Iran is setting the captured sailors free. There is way more behind this than is being told by either side. Stories like this dont just change and become all happy happy overnight. Whats next?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak By Night Posted April 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Here is Michael Coren's take on Iran.This editorial was written several months ago before the capture of the British sailors. I would imagine he more or less feels the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 [color:purple]Yeah, drop a nuke on the middle east. Can't see that having any long lasting implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Michael Coren is an ass, IMHO. I can't comprehend an individual like him. He touts himself as a devout Christian, yet seems to somehow justify nuclear warfare by thinking that it could possibly "save" millions of people. Nuclear war on Iran would instigate a global fundamentalist Islamic jihad. It would never end.Do you think that Michael Coren would make such ridiculous diatribes if Iran was a "christian" nation? This is the type of rhetoric that fuels the war of religions.SICK SICK SICK ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Coren's a dink and a terrible discussion moderator ta boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Agreed - he's a conversational thug. Even the Southern Baptist radio host I did my dissertation on comes away looking like Big Bird compared to him (well, not quite, but still). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak By Night Posted April 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 I say we nuke Michael Coren and his fat anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-pre-marital-sex ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 anti-pre-marital-sex ass. I think that "marital-sex" was the only way he was going to get any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 I dunno - his moniker in Frank magazine used to be (if it isn't still) "Michael Cornhole". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts