Working up to Iran now, the first real warning is made.

[Comrade]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/eed88be8-0741-11d9-9672-00000e2511c8.html

US debates military strikes on 'nuclear Iran'
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: September 15 2004 19:31 | Last updated: September 15 2004 19:31

The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.


Analysts close to the administration say military options are under consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is preparing actual action.

When asked, senior officials repeat that President George W. Bush is removing no option from the table - but that he believes the issue can be solved by diplomatic means.

Diplomacy on Wednesday appeared stalled.

The US and its European allies on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency continued to wrangle over the wording of a resolution on Iran which insists it has no intention of using its advanced civilian programme to make a bomb.

Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says that with "enough intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a good job" of slowing Iran's programme for a while.

But, he cautions, the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for the aftermath.

That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered in the debate over "regime change".

Asked whether Israel would take military action if the US dithered, Mr Schmitt replied: "Absolutely. No government in Israel will let this pass ultimately."

Tom Donnelly, an analyst with PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute, says that while inflicting military damage is possible, the consequences rule out this option.

If the US started down the military road, it would have to consider going the whole way to invasion and occupation.

"We have to start thinking in terms of a post-nuclear Iran," he said, describing the Europeans as "hopeless" on Iran, and India and China boosting their energy relations with the clerical regime.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, says the US and its allies are in a state of denial, that it is too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It already has the capacity, he says.

Neither of the US and European options "to bomb or bribe Iran" would succeed and both could make it worse.

Mr Sokolski describes as "highly irresponsible" the idea that the US can let Israel do the job.

The short-term benefits of air strikes would have to be weighed against the costs of a blow to US efforts to foster more moderate Islamic rule in Iran and the Middle East.

The military option is laid out in detail by Globalsecurity.org, a defence think-tank.

"The window of opportunity for disarming strikes against Iran will close in 2005," it warns, as key plants come on stream next year. It says Iran has two dozen suspected nuclear sites.

But it adds that the absence of significant numbers of US stealth aircraft, early warning aircraft and other assets in the region indicate that the US is not actively considering air strike options at the moment.

PNAC is usually on the ball. This is only the start of posturing for eventual use of force in Bush's re-election. Iran should give in if they are smart.

 

[padisha emperor]

My question :
USA say that Iran has nuke sites. well. So in a few months (weeks ?) USA will strikes Iran.
In march, USA will probably say that Syria has nuke sites. So, in april, they will attack Syria - and also Jordania, US will do a group's price. Specila terms for Jordania.
After, Lebanon, in january 2006. - incredible, but Lebanon will have always nuke sites.

And while these war on Middle and Near East, a country, hostile to USA, with nuke sites - it is a certitude, here - and nuclear missiles, will be quiet. North Korea will look at the US ops and will laugh


Of course, I exaggerate. You understand it.

But i did this exaggeration to show you one thing :
USA atacked Iraq, and now want to attack Iran. But what about the N-Korea, the most dangerous country - COUNTRY, this term has importance - for USA.
So, why attack second-danger country and leave alone and quiet the big evil ?

 

[Annie]

My question :
USA say that Iran has nuke sites. well. So in a few months (weeks ?) USA will strikes Iran.
In march, USA will probably say that Syria has nuke sites. So, in april, they will attack Syria - and also Jordania, US will do a group's price. Specila terms for Jordania.
After, Lebanon, in january 2006. - incredible, but Lebanon will have always nuke sites.

And while these war on Middle and Near East, a country, hostile to USA, with nuke sites - it is a certitude, here - and nuclear missiles, will be quiet. North Korea will look at the US ops and will laugh


Of course, I exaggerate. You understand it.

But i did this exaggeration to show you one thing :
USA atacked Iraq, and now want to attack Iran. But what about the N-Korea, the most dangerous country - COUNTRY, this term has importance - for USA.
So, why attack second-danger country and leave alone and quiet the big evil ?

Because France has our back?

 

[padisha emperor]

Because France has our back?

?? sorry, what does it mean ?

Nevermind.
Why, when I post a message about USA, do you always refer to France ?

Look : My question : Why, instead of making war against all the arabian wolrd, the USA not attack the real danger, N-Korea ?
Why USA attack all the poor countries who have certainly not nuke sites - like Iraq - instead of strinking a hostile country who who has nuke sites ?

This is my question.
I never said the word "France" or "french".
So Kathianne, why do you always speak of France ?
Here, it is about the USA, the Arabian world - the target - and NK

 

[Comrade]

My question :
USA say that Iran has nuke sites. well. So in a few months (weeks ?) USA will strikes Iran.

After the election.

In march, USA will probably say that Syria has nuke sites. So, in april, they will attack Syria - and also Jordania, US will do a group's price. Specila terms for Jordania.

Oh surely not. They get it, and after Iran they won't give us an excuse.

After, Lebanon, in january 2006. - incredible, but Lebanon will have always nuke sites.

Well 10 minutes after they do we'll see it tested in Tel-Aviv. But that ridiculous.

And while these war on Middle and Near East, a country, hostile to USA, with nuke sites - it is a certitude, here - and nuclear missiles, will be quiet. North Korea will look at the US ops and will laugh

Look, you live by nonviolence, and if we attack anyone it aggravates the situation. But NK is laughing at YOU, not Bush. You're ideas got him time to cheat and make nukes. And Iran is getting away with screwing the EU and only now the US is getting serious. And I bet the leading Clerics are definately not laughing. Is Saddam laughing?

Of course, I exaggerate. You understand it.

But i did this exaggeration to show you one thing :
USA atacked Iraq, and now want to attack Iran. But what about the N-Korea, the most dangerous country - COUNTRY, this term has importance - for USA.

What about it? First you had China and the Communist who let this tyrant and his son rule since the 50's. Then you got Seoul and our S.K. allies who would die by millions if we had caused a war since then, nuclear or not. It's pretty much the attitude from Europe about Iran which emulates how N.K. developed nukes. So first of all it's too late for N.K. While Europe goes about building reactors for Iran we're the ones facing a decision to keep them from making nukes, and it's our asses and not France there to back it up. It's also ONLY the US who stands guard in South Korea. If the Europeans don't send troops who are they to even protest US policy in our defence of our democratic allies?

It's not anyone from the EU who will put their ass on the line for making sure Iran's Mullahs don't get nukes, it will be the US and few allies.

So, why attack second-danger country and leave alone and quiet the big evil ?

For the same reasons we didn't attack the Soviet Union.

 

[Comrade]

?? sorry, what does it mean ?

Nevermind.
Why, when I post a message about USA, do you always refer to France ?

Look : My question : Why, instead of making war against all the arabian wolrd, the USA not attack the real danger, N-Korea ?
Why USA attack all the poor countries who have certainly not nuke sites - like Iraq - instead of strinking a hostile country who who has nuke sites ?

You can really answer a loaded question like this. Why wasn't Afganistan after 9-11 the logical place to address a real danger we could stop while it could be stopped?

You don't just go attacking North Korea for no good reason other than let Seoul burn.

 

[dilloduck]

?? sorry, what does it mean ?

Nevermind.
Why, when I post a message about USA, do you always refer to France ?

Look : My question : Why, instead of making war against all the arabian wolrd, the USA not attack the real danger, N-Korea ?
Why USA attack all the poor countries who have certainly not nuke sites - like Iraq - instead of strinking a hostile country who who has nuke sites ?

This is my question.
I never said the word "France" or "french".
So Kathianne, why do you always speak of France ?
Here, it is about the USA, the Arabian world - the target - and NK

What difference does it really make to you dish?---You are just gonna be a spectator for whatever happens. If ya don't contribute ,you don't get to pick and choose our foreign policy for us.

 

[NATO AIR]

it will be a messy, sticky situation for all hands involved. we need better options but they are not available. so a military strike may very well be the best option in the end.

 

[dilloduck]

it will be a messy, sticky situation for all hands involved. we need better options but they are not available. so a military strike may very well be the best option in the end.

I'd rather be shot than picked to death by greedy buzzards

 

[padisha emperor]

What difference does it really make to you dish?---You are just gonna be a spectator for whatever happens. If ya don't contribute ,you don't get to pick and choose our foreign policy for us.

you're close-minded.
For you, a spectator can not give his opinion, his advice ?

You know, people can always give their opinion. It is called : liberty of expression.
Even - above all in fact - if they disagree with you.

it will be a messy, sticky situation for all hands involved. we need better options but they are not available. so a military strike may very well be the best option in the end.

where ? in Iran ?
first, sent UN inspectors. or civilian inspectors.
Because, it won't be good for US it they attack a country without nuke sites. Whatever, it would be bad for US, but if they can minimize the bad reputation, it would be best for them.

 

[dmp]

why does the rest of the world consider North Korea the "Unites States'" problem?

I think Europe doesn't care about Asians. Really. If the US fought NK, I'd guess tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands? of civilian casualties. But - Asians don't seem to matter; the EU is more worried about the liberation and subsequent civilian casualty rate, of people with round eyes.

Iran is more of a threat to peace than NK. Easily.

 

[dilloduck]

you're close-minded.
For you, a spectator can not give his opinion, his advice ?

You know, people can always give their opinion. It is called : liberty of expression.
Even - above all in fact - if they disagree with you.



where ? in Iran ?
first, sent UN inspectors. or civilian inspectors.
Because, it won't be good for US it they attack a country without nuke sites. Whatever, it would be bad for US, but if they can minimize the bad reputation, it would be best for them.

yap all you want here but in the real world you are a spectator. To hell with the reputation-we're gonna protect ourselves with or without help

 

[dmp]

Side note: Expressing dissatisfaction without offering viable alternatives is worthless. Even if it's 'just an opinion'.

 

[padisha emperor]

=d= , I give my opinion when I think that there is a problem. And when I can, i give solutions, clues, or indications.
sometimes I cannot, but I give just the same my opinion, maybe to awake some people. So, people would see that there is a problem, and they would maybe be able to give clues, solutions.

posted by me :

first, sent UN inspectors. or civilian inspectors.
Because, it won't be good for US it they attack a country without nuke sites. Whatever, it would be bad for US, but if they can minimize the bad reputation, it would be best for them.
09-16-2004 10:05 PM

it is a kind of solution, of thought : send UN's or other organization's inspectors.
the second patr of my quotation advice the USA : an other despotic war and the USA would be really hated by the world.

 

[Annie]

yap all you want here but in the real world you are a spectator. To hell with the reputation-we're gonna protect ourselves with or without help

Padisha, you keep saying, "We are allies". What you seem to mean is, "US should do what WE and other countries of no import tell you to do."

"We got your back" means, we will cover you, so the enemy has a more difficult time hurting you. IE., it's what allies do for one another. See, France IS NOT an ally. The others just are blowing your hot air back at you.

You are the one that is closed minded. Notice, none of us are on the francemessageboard.com , nor any desire to...We are not trying to go convert the French, we know who our friends are.

 

[padisha emperor]

You are the one that is closed minded. Notice, none of us are on the francemessageboard.com , nor any desire to...We are not trying to go convert the French, we know who our friends are.

I try to understand, to be informate, i'm curious....
I'm not close-minded. You are
why would I be close minded ? because I don't think same as you ? Man ! if everybody think the same, how a boring, sick and sad world it would be !!!

I have different opinion of yours, I doesn't share yours, but I respect it all the same.

I try to understand why US hate France - i know now - and I interest myself to the US politic - interior and foreign - .
You even not try to interest France and french. You have stereotyps about french, and you make nothing to change them in your mind.
Youi say that France is your ennemy. wrong. but you think it. So, don't you know this sentence : 'know your ennemy" ?
you don't know France, french population motivations, or you seem to not know them.


So, where is the most close-minded ? the french guy on a US message board or the US isolationist woman ?

 

[Annie]

I try to understand, to be informate, i'm curious....
I'm not close-minded. You are
why would I be close minded ? because I don't think same as you ? Man ! if everybody think the same, how a boring, sick and sad world it would be !!!

I have different opinion of yours, I doesn't share yours, but I respect it all the same.

I try to understand why US hate France - i know now - and I interest myself to the US politic - interior and foreign - .
You even not try to interest France and french. You have stereotyps about french, and you make nothing to change them in your mind.
Youi say that France is your ennemy. wrong. but you think it. So, don't you know this sentence : 'know your ennemy" ?
you don't know France, french population motivations, or you seem to not know them.


So, where is the most close-minded ? the french guy on a US message board or the US isolationist woman ?

YOU are the closed minded one. You do not come to be informed, but to 'enlighten' us with your deluded sense of brilliance. You are not only closed minded, arrogant, prejudiced, you are also delusional.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Hello padisha emperor:

I'm curious, what do you feel the general consensus of the French population is in regards to Iraq today?

Iran having nuclear bombs?

The head scarf law in France?

 

[padisha emperor]

I don't say and never said that my opinion was the best. I never not respect yours. You - not necessary you Kathianne, the problem in english is that there is no differences between plural's 2nd person and singular 2nd person : you and you - seems to think that your opinion is the only one who may be respected, why ? because it is yours.
It is unfair.
As soon I say something different, you say to me that I'm close minded.

Obsequium amicos. but I don't want to be accomodative, servile.
If my opinion hurts you, it doesn't mean necessary that it is a dumb opinion. like said Ali, truth always hurts.


I don't want to convert you to my opinion.
And even if I wanted, you are too much self confident about your opinion that I couldn't.
The fact of beeing too much self confident of it opinion, is it not a proof of close-mindness ? (don(t know if close-mindness is the correct name, but you see what i mean)

I am not self confident of my opinion.
I believe in it since somebody show me with intelligence and with a smart way that it is not right.

Ali and I posted here some thing to proove t you that some things that you thought were wrong. You do'nt care - again, not necessary you Kathianne - about it, and continue to ignore what we say.

 

[padisha emperor]

Hello, Jihadthis.

Good questions.

First, for the iraqi point :
French population doesn't want this war because we found and still find it unfair.Of course, we were happy to see a dictator down, but the invasion and occupation of a country is not a really good thing. As some of users said so many time, France has been occupied from 1940 to 1944. We know what an occupation is. (I don't live it, I'm too young, really too, but we know what is it)
France also know what war is. The french history is made of wars, of battles, of great victories and tragic defeats.
Since the french revolution, except the Crimea war in 1856 and the campain in Italy during the french revolution and with Napoleon III, France knew war on her soil : from 1792 to 1794 ; from 1814 to 1815, from 1870 to 1871, from 1914 to 1918 - the north east of France was destructed, and it is not an illustration, really destructed - , from 1940 to 1944/45.
And even during the Indochina war, it was a french territory. And even during the Algeria war, Algeria was consider as a metropolitan territory, not a colony.

So, we know what is the destruction and the occupation.
So, a lot of french people disagree with this war.
But above all, France disagree - I mean french population, like you asked me - because we find that it was a war for oil.
We are not the only one who think that.
We take this war as : a lie : no WMD. War for oil.
As : a US demonstration of their strength, I mean that US overpassed the UN decision, USA didn't respect the UN decision to not make the war.
For us,it is an illegal war.

But be sure, French are not happy when US soldiers and UK soldiers are killed. It is sad. But we are also sad for the Iraqi people, for the several thousands of Iraqi civilians KIA.


Second point : about Iran :
I don't know if Iran has Nuclear weapon.
I saw the message at the beginning of this thread. But I have doubt about the satellite's pics : USA believe that Iraq had WMD, they showed pics with WMD. In fact it was not WMD. So, it can be also a mistake here.

It may be possible, that Iran has nuke weapons. But it is not suer. People should - no, HAVE TO - check the information, because an other unfair war, and USA would be in a real hell, wiht other countries.

Third point :
headscarves : the seculary law in France is France's problem. (this really doesn't mean that I will not answer to you, not at all, it means that it is a question between french and french).
You know, since 1905, in France the church is separated with the State. (law of 1905)
And since the end of the XIXth century, the school is free, obligatory, and undenominational. It is for PUBLIC schools. the private are not necessary free - they are never - and undenominational.( they must be obligatory). So there are catholic schools - a lot - protestant schools...jewish schools and muslim schools.

But the fact is that in the public schools, pupils have to not have symbols who are ostentation (not name, but adjective, I don't know it, sorry), and obvious.
Not obvious religious symbols, because the schools are undenominational
so : little cross, David star, Fathma Hand, no problem. But big crosses, Kippa and Headscarves are not allowed.

In fact, nobody wear Kippa, and big crosses, if people wera it, are hidden under the clothes. The real "problem" is the headscarf.

Because since several years, schools' directors have problem with pupils who don't accept to carry off their headscarves. And at schools, the cap are not allowed - in the rooms - so, for a headscarf...
But the sesitive point is in the school square, outside the rooms. here, caps are allowed.
Headscarf is forbidden because it is a religious symbol, very obvious, with a lot of ostentation.

the rules are the same for everybody.
If a pupil come wioth a kippa, he would have to carry it off.

(of course,in the private school, if it is a jewish one, the kippa is certainly allowed, in the muslim ones, the headscarf is allowed)


Now, my opinion :
I have no problem with girls who wear headscarves. erally not. It doesn't hurt me, when I see a girl at school with a headscarf.

I am not right behind this law, but not totally against it.
I don't think that it was undispensable. There is most important things, about whose the government should think to give clues.

And there is for the moment no problems :
muslim girls carry off it when they come into school. And the hostage affair - the law about seculary was a stupid idea, the terrorist though at it after the took - showed that the french muslims were right behind the government, some even insults - lightly - the terrorist, sayng it was a problem between french and french. they were disgusted to see that this law was a pretext to an hostage took.
So the muslims respect totally this law.
It is not an attempt against the individual liberties, because uit is only at school. I think hat some foreigners were affraid, because they thought that it was forbidden everywhere. Not at all (but I say it again, I 'm not sure that it is a so good idea, other things are most important)

If you have any other question, ask me.

I hope that my answer give to you some satisfaction.