My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Finlayson - Public to be denied voice on 'new' election bill | Main | Nik is not going to be happy about this »

Comments

John Boy

Israel does the strike thing very well without UN assistance. I think the US / UN should keep their visible noses out of it (the UN would never endorse a raid by Israel anyway) and let the real experts do their thing. That will stall things a while.

I think its pointless to worry and this shambles is simply sliding down the slope to the final dust up. On that basis WW3 really will be the war to end all wars. Get your ticket now.

Dave Mann

Bush is wrong. WWIII has aleady be fought (and won). It ended when the Berlin Wall came down and with the subsequent break up of the USSR.

WWIV is the correct term to use.. but even this has now been going for longer than is publicly recognised. In fact, the two wars overlapped and WWIV's first shots were fired against Jimmy (bless his silly smile) Carter by the Iranian takeover of the US embassy in Teheran in Nov 1979.

WWIV continued in its initial-phase skirmishes with extended asymmetric warfare campaigns by the forces of the religion Of Peace until the major attacks of Sept 11th 2001 brought it to the world's attention.

However, even then hardly anybody in the Western Democracies seems to have grasped the truth of the situation and this myopia continues even now. Not only do people insist in misunderstanding that it is actually WWIV.... but the majority seem not to even realise that there is a war on at all!

The only way to rectify this would be for a 'declaration of war' to be made. But that would be just awful, would't it? After all, war is a tewwible thing.. too tewwible to contemplate. The Beatles said "Give Peace A Chance" and, as we all know, popular morality is governed by popular musicians, so we should all just bury our heads in the sand and hope it isn't happening.

If we don't think about it, maybe it will go away quietly. Maybe.

Psycho Milt

Iran could set off WW3? Isn't that like talking about how the Poles set off WW2?

Rick

Must have been the muslim Poles, psychomilt. Oh but wait, they were fighting the nazis too, even after being pushed out of their homeland by the Soviets.

Seems they have a lot more in common with the jews than either side realise.

Wars eh? What a hoot it is trying to decided who started what and who was the worst offender.

Adolf Fiinkensein

I suggest we will see the US move significant troops to the Iraq/Iran border, a series of Israeli air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, accompanied by some discreet submarine launched cruise missiles and some extremely violent overt and covert action against Qods facilities and IED factories. All over in 24 hours followed by a declaration of war by the US against the current Iranian regime, resumption of the military draft in the US and a resounding elction victory for the GOP.

Psycho Milt

As I said - calling that "Iran setting off WW3" is like saying the Poles set off WW2.

ian

Rather than arguing semantics Milt...take a position on the question raised by the article...should the world let a leader with an Armageddon complex get his paws on a nuclear weapon when he has just proudly displayed their long range Shahab missiles and been testing freighter-launched missiles on the Caspian, allegedly capable of plonking an EMP device into the atmosphere...

Personally, regardless of what we think of the US war machine, I don't think the world can take the risk with Iran of letting them have the technology...

The claim that nukes are for energy purposes only is rubbish - Iran is sitting on enough oil to supply its own needs for a thousand years if required...

Millions would die in a nuclear war, however....surely a surgical airstrike is the best option...?

Shane Ponting

I say nuke Iran now! Nuke em!!!! Just as long as I can have the footage in High Definition (HDTV mushroom clouds anyone?) :) ;)

Psycho Milt

It's not semantics. If Bush wants to wage aggressive war against a(nother) sovereign state, it isn't that victim that's starting a war.

The world has so far risked a minimum of America, England, France, the Soviet Union, India, Pakistan and Israel gaining nuclear weapons. All of them are proven warmongers. Surprisingly enough, we're all still here, despite not having waged aggressive war against any of them. If you want to set a precedent, try and find one that won't put us up alongside Hitler and Stalin.

If you're worried about that hapless buffoon Ahmadinejad, why is that? He's a front man very successfully doing his job of keeping the media's attention from the people who actually rule Iran. I've no idea what their attitude to using nukes is, and I'm willing to bet George Bush hasn't either.

ian

Milt...if a man with a gun points it at police, but does not shoot, he risks getting shot, and we in the community generally uphold the right of police to defend public order and their own lives, oui?

If a country whose leader has made fascist and warmongering comments, wants to get hold of the ultimate gun, you want to stand back and let him on the basis that the UN does not yet have "just cause".

You want him to blow something up first?

Psycho Milt

False analogy - what you're proposing is that the Police should be able to shoot someone because he's got a big mouth and may one day buy a gun, which doesn't strike me as the way to run a civilisation. You're also proposing George Walker Bush as World Policeman, which given his own fascist and warmongering comments, not to mention actual possession of nuclear arms, strikes me as distinctly dodgy.

Look at it from Iran's point of view - your sworn enemy just invaded your neighbour's house, killed some of your neighbours and wrecked the place. None of the rest of your community lifted a finger to stop them. Maybe it's time to think about how to defend your own property?

AcidComments

"The world has so far risked a minimum of America, England, France, the Soviet Union, India, Pakistan and Israel gaining nuclear weapons."


Don't forget China. They're substantianlly upgrading and modernizing their nuclear capability.

Including new ICBMs, Nuke subs and building aircraft carriers.

US Defence analysts consider China the main threat in the Pacific Region.


ian

Milt...yes, so your neighbour has just had his house raided (because he too tried to build WMDS, and don't get distracted by the line that he'd lost interest - there was speculation at the time that the evidence was shifted to Syria, and the attack on an apparent nuke facility in Syria last month would tend to bear that out)

It is one thing to defend yourself, it is another to reach for a nuclear weapon. Or are you arguing that it is justifiable in Iran's or North Korea's case?

America hasn't nuked anyone since WW2...it is a democracy and answerable to its people. Iran is a virtual theocracy, which makes its Armageddon fantasies directly relevant.

You are not seriously suggesting that Iran has a right to get nukes to protect itself? Iran has not been invaded by the West since WW2, and without nukes there would be no need to attack it.

Seems like selective opposition to nuclear proliferation to me...

Psycho Milt

I am seriously suggesting that one sovereign state doesn't have the right to attack another because some of its more hysterical leaders are indulging in paranoid fantasies. Bush has given us one example in his term of office already, and we certainly don't need another.

As for selective opposition to nuclear proliferation, isn't that exactly the US position? Or do you imagine they didn't turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons programme?

On one thing we are agreed: Iran is a sterling example of why you shouldn't let religious leaders run your country.

PhilBest

See if you get the connection: on the street in Washington, hand out copies of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Rig Veda, and Voltaire. Then try it in Tehran.

Now THAT'S why I'm happy for the U.S. to have nukes, and Iran not to. Clear?

PhilBest

In "After the NeoCons", Francis Fukuyama argues something like this (if I've understood him rightly). The cost in lost international goodwill to the U.S. if they "act unilaterally" is so great that it would be wiser for them to just wait and
get "hit" first so that they can then act with the world's sympathy.

I have two difficulties with this. One is that so much of the world hates the U.S. so much, they will be pleased, not sorry, to see it get "hit". The other is that like Hitler in the 1930's, waiting gives your enemies the chance to get into a stronger position so that the eventual conflict is that much costlier.

The "appeasers" in the 1930's refused to believe that all the stuff Hitler had written and said had to be taken seriously. It's not as if there isn't a whole lot of apocalyptic and genocidal ranting coming from the Iranian camp that it might be wise to take into account, eh?

Psycho Milt

"Now THAT'S why I'm happy for the U.S. to have nukes, and Iran not to. Clear?"

Certainly. Me too. The question at hand though is whether we're currently entitled to start a war against Iran and call it their fault. Your comment seems to imply that the answer is yes, because we have more freedom than them. I advise visiting Wikipedia and looking up "non sequitur (logic)."

"It's not as if there isn't a whole lot of apocalyptic and genocidal ranting coming from the Iranian camp that it might be wise to take into account, eh?"

See my earlier comment re the Iranian regime's oafish frontman, Ahmadinejad. And speaking of apocalyptic and genocidal ranting, are you sure you don't mean this:

"I say nuke Iran now! Nuke em!!!! Just as long as I can have the footage in High Definition..."
(Shane Ponting, earlier in this thread)

Ian wrote: "...yes, so your neighbour has just had his house raided (because he too tried to build WMDS, and don't get distracted by the line that he'd lost interest - there was speculation at the time that the evidence was shifted to Syria, and the attack on an apparent nuke facility in Syria last month would tend to bear that out)"
Exactly: your neighbour was just "raided" - not by the Police (ie, the UN) but by a vigilante group, who wrecked the place and killed a lot of people, found nothing of the supposed weapons that were being prepared there, but have plenty of speculation about what your fiendishly clever neighbours supposedly did with these alleged weapons. This vigilante group hates you just as much as your neighbours and has now started eyeing up your property. Yeah, no reason at all to get nervous...

AcidComments

Also not forgetting Russia and China have made a few veiled threats over the recent years to 'nuke' the USA!

---------------------------
Breaking Headline Reports from Jerusalem NewsWire Friday,
October 19, 2007 were:
[1] Olmert's meeting in Russia about a 'Nuclear Iran' fell
on deaf ears and Putin told Israel ~ "Take A Hike"...!
[2] Analyst says Olmert put "Military" option on Putin's
table..!
JERUSALEM NEWSWIRE

AcidComments

Israel Warns World War III May be Biblical War of Gog and Magog

www.israelnationalnews.com

(IsraelNN.com) US President George W. Bush said a nuclear Iran would mean World War III. Israeli newscasts featured Gog & Magog maps of the likely alignment of nations in that potential conflict.

Channel 2 and Channel 10 TV showed the world map, sketching the basic alignment of the two opposing axes in a coming world war, in a manner evoking associations of the Gog and Magog prophecy for many viewers. The prophecy of Gog and Magog refers to a great world war centered on the Holy Land and Jerusalem and first appears in the book of Yechezkel (Ezekiel).

On one side were Israel, the United States, Britain, France and Germany. On the other were Iran, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea.

US President Bush said Wednesday during a press conference that Iran attaining nuclear weapons raises the risk of "World War III."

"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested [in preventing a nuclear Iran]…I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Iran Tuesday and slammed the US’s refusal to rule out the use of force against Iran’s nuclear project. "Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of force as a possibility," he said.

Russia has blocked tougher UN sanctions in the UN Security Council, where it has veto power. The Russian president asserts that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons rather than a peaceful nuclear power program.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called for a new Security Council resolution against Iran at a press conference following her meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Wednesday. "I do believe there is a need for another Security Council resolution,” she told reporters. “In the past, the need to get everybody on board - including Russia and China - led to some compromises on the nature of the sanctions. I hope this will not be the case this time."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Wednesday a sudden trip to Moscow Thursday morning, where he will meet with Putin about Iran. Other topics of discussion will reportedly be Russia’s continued supply of weapons to Syria, which have then made their way into the hands of various terrorist groups based there as well.

PO Box 640

Russellville AR 72811

www.revelationfiles.com

AcidComments

Putin touts new nuclear weapons against US

President Vladimir Putin has announced plans to build a new generation of nuclear weapons after accusing the United States of harbouring an "erotic" desire to invade Russia and steal its natural resources.

http://topspeednews.com/story.php?title=Putin_touts_new_nuclear_weapons_against_US

The comments to this entry are closed.