bush just lost his excuse for invading iran...

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:41 pm

time for a nuke in one our cities?...

http://en.rian.ru/world/20060226/43785707.html

Post by **Captain** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:51 pm

You never had an excuse in the first place.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:53 pm

What the fuck Geoff, what the fuck.

Post by **R00k** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:05 pm

Israel is going to attack Iran. Iran is going to retaliate against our ships in the Gulf. Then we will "be forced" to defend ourselves.

Of course, since Iran likely isn't stupid enough to attack us directly, we will probably have another USS Liberty/Pearl Harbor/Bay of Pigs/etc. incident to bring us on board.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:10 pm

or they will just let iran hit one of israel nuke plants then the war will be on...

Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:11 pm

You mean the impending Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Post by **seremtan** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:01 pm

the BBC has this too, but puts the usual lazy sleepwalking-to-war spin on it:

The Russian compromise proposal is that Iran move all the sensitive parts of its nuclear programme to Russian soil to ally Western concerns.

But it is thought unlikely Iran would agree to this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 752620.stm

thought unlikely by who? the novosti article linked in geoff's post says they've agreed to do this in russia. wtf?

The Russian proposal has been seen by many as a last chance for Iran to compromise with the UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

but since iran already bent over backward to compromise with the IAEA with its 2 year moratorium, and since that (entirely voluntary) moratorium was only ended by the threat of being referred to the UNSC, who is really being uncompromising here?

The agency reported Iran to the Security Council in January over a lack of co-operation and transparency in its nuclear activities.

and yet the most recent IAEA report on iran (feb 6th) says the complete opposite

sounds to me like the plan is to force a response of minimal cooperation (i.e. strictly within the bounds of the NPT) from iran, then spin it as non-cooperation. bear in mind of course that the permanent UNSC members are also permanent members of the IAEA committee that votes on these things...

Post by **R00k** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:09 pm

seremtan wrote:thought unlikely by who? the novosti article linked in geoff's post says they've agreed to do this in russia. wtf?

Oh they're agreeing to it alright. But that's not likely to be heavily reported in any of our news sources:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20060226/43785707.html