It's official - Iraqi resistance = Iran nuclear programme!
Nov 21 2005 05:59
"The British army in Iraq is now being targetted by new more lethal IEDs these roadside bombs can punch through armour. defence sources say the experise in how to make them, and some of the material, is coming from Iran [...] But since president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in June there've been many more lethal attacks on British troops. One theory is that all this is part of Iran's attempts to build a nuclear bomb"
[Paul Wood - BBC correspondent, BBC news report, news at ten 19/11/05]
Erm...
WHAT !?!?
ARRRRRRGHH! Just watched BBC news on internet (don't have a TV). Unfuckingbelieveable! Do people really believe this shit? First off roadside bombs and IEDs have always been able to punch through armour - how the fuck else could they have killed the other 55 British troops killed by resistance since the end of 'the war'? The report claims the most recently killed 9 troops have died basically because of Iran and massively improved explosive technology. It then goes on to say this is part of Iran's nuclear strategy. You couldn't make this shit up.
Nov 21 2005 14:15
#2
I don't mean to sound defeatist but I really don't think there's much chance to stop a war with Iran, especially because I think they're liable just to bomb fuck out of it, (potentially nuking it in a more full on way than some of the nukes used in Iraq) take the capital and do most of the actual fighting with proxy forces.
I anticipate the great British public will probably buy into this war and the propaganda even more than they did the last one. The fact that The Establishment feels confident (strident even) enough to have propaganda as shite and unsophisticated as that is testament to how far the ground has shifted away from opposing Imperialist aggression.
I mean come on - small roadside bombs are part of Iran's nuclear programme - what?!?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and the fact that people really aren't up in arms about being fed such utter bullshit but are just swallowing it passively is a really grim reality that we'd do well to take on board.
Solidarity,
Nick
Nov 21 2005 14:27
#3
You really go from extreme to extreme, don't you nick? I rmeember when you were saying that no workers' movement worth anything could abandon its Iraqi brothers and sisters, it's our duty to stop the war/occupation, otherwise we'd have blood on our hands, etc.
IMO I think the chances of stopping, or rather, resisting, a war on Iran through direct action are very good indeed, especially if Blair stays in power for a bit longer.
Nov 21 2005 14:38
#4
I never said we shouldn't try ffs. I'm just a little bit depressed about the situation, that's all. I fully intend to do my best to stop it.
Nov 21 2005 15:20
#5
Nick Durie wrote:
(potentially nuking it in a more full on way than some of the nukes used in Iraq)
What definition of nuclear weapons are you using to try and claim nuclear weapons were used in Iraq?
Nov 21 2005 15:35
#6
Depleted uranium? (Radioactive but not nukes)
Thermobaric bombs have the effect of a small nuke, without the fallout.
Nov 21 2005 21:03
#7
Quote:
I mean come on - small roadside bombs are part of Iran's nuclear programme - what?!?That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and the fact that people really aren't up in arms about being fed such utter bullshit but are just swallowing it passively is a really grim reality that we'd do well to take on board.
I can understand your disbelief here nick but are you sure that the quote from the bbc wasnt just a result of incoherent reporting as opposed to outright propaganda?
And i dont think people do just swallow this shit without blinking an eyelid, before Iraq it may have been mostly the 'conscious minority' whove had the pleasure of reading a bit of chomsky or Orwell who saw through the emaciated pretext for war but i'd say that most people at this moment in time take what the government (maybe to a lesser extent the bbc) with a hefty pinch of salt.
With regards actually stopping a war with iran (and when you said a few months back that a war with Iran is 'inevitable' i must say that i didnt really believe it and still wouldnt go as far to say its inevitable) i really dont know what to say, i'd hope that the workers would propose immediate (in)action and go on strike and that violent protests would errupt around whitehall and in every city and town in the country. However i'm affraid that the twat whose become president seems to be doing a very good job of putting forward the case for war with talk of wiping out other countries, hardly the diplomacy of a leader with a barrel to his head!
Nov 21 2005 21:08
#8
Hi
Quote:
I don't mean to sound defeatist but I really don't think there's much chance to stop a war with Iran
You’re not sounding defeatist. The defeatist position is to surrender to Iran, not invade it.
Love
LR
Nov 21 2005 21:30
#9
lol at LR
BTW, there's no way the UK will go along with any invasion, and very little chance that the US will invade. There's too much solid opposition from China, India, Russia and the EU, all major trading partners of Iran and major players in the 'stans.
Nov 21 2005 21:43
#10
i'm not sure how likely an all out invasion of iran is at the moment becuase their so bogged down in iraq. But in response to lazlo i think Britain would deffinately go along ith th eventual invasion if their is one, Britain recently has ben more and moreaccusing iran of anything it can and taking tough stances agains them.
Nov 21 2005 22:17
#11
Be careful of taking your info about what the UK state's intentions are from the media image they try to put out. The harsh words towards Iran recently have been more a consequence of the impotence of the US/UK towards Iran than a signal of impending military action.
As you say, right now they're too bogged down to do much. Raising the temperature verbally doesn't cost anything and it distracts opublic opinion at home.
Nov 21 2005 22:22
#12
but i think the verbal attacks are there to lay the foundations for a future imperialist assault
Nov 21 2005 22:36
#13
Quote:
What definition of nuclear weapons are you using to try and claim nuclear weapons were used in Iraq?
Bunker buster bombs - they detonate an atomic bomb once they get so far beneath the ground as far as I'm aware. No lovely mushroom cloud but an atomic bomb nonetheless.
There's a case as well for DU to be included but it's controversial. notwithstanding however it has raised the level of reported cancers twenty times because it's entered the food chain - the agricultural regions escaped the bombings during the first gulf war and so didn't get Dued but this time they used a lot more of that shit and it's now in all the soil and water, happily.
Nov 21 2005 22:46
#14
Quote:
lol at LRBTW, there's no way the UK will go along with any invasion, and very little chance that the US will invade. There's too much solid opposition from China, India, Russia and the EU, all major trading partners of Iran and major players in the 'stans.
I actually think that's why they HAVE to invade - they'll use of proxy force of course but Iran has to fall because it's under chino-russian influence and has the second largest gas reserves in the world - something that will make it increasingly important as an imperialist possession.
Nov 21 2005 22:55
#15
Nick Durie wrote:
Bunker buster bombs - they detonate an atomic bomb once they get so far beneath the ground as far as I'm aware. No lovely mushroom cloud but an atomic bomb nonetheless.
Those have never been used yet. They're still being developed at Aldermaston AWE.
Nov 21 2005 22:58
#16
Nick Durie wrote:
I actually think that's why they HAVE to invade - they'll use of proxy force of course but Iran has to fall because it's under chino-russian influence and has the second largest gas reserves in the world - something that will make it increasingly important as an imperialist possession.
So when will they invade? When they pull out of Iraq? The repercussions for US/UK troops in Iraq of an invasion of Iran will be quite severe -- a la Tet offensive.
Likewise, China just has to start suggesting that it's thinking about selling its vast stores of US dollars and the US economy is on the skids.
All in all, very unlikely. But you're right, they'd really like to be able to do it.
Nov 22 2005 13:36
#17
Quote:
So when will they invade? When they pull out of Iraq? The repercussions for US/UK troops in Iraq of an invasion of Iran will be quite severe -- a la Tet offensive.
I see what you are saying, but I think this has more relevance for the UK, which has always been the expendable partner anyway. I don't think Britain's system of governance would be able to take the kind of pressure that would come from something like that. I think it wouldn't make a fuck of a difference anymore in the US which is on the verge of being fascist anyway.
I firmly believe the US will introduce conscription shortly. This will solve some of these difficulties short term. At any rate what we have in the next few years is the begining of a world war between three superpowers. In that climate they will just have to take that risk. Admittedly the US doesn't have the troops at the moment but watch this space. If they go ahead Iran they willneed to do this. It's my opinion that they will go ahead and invade Iran and so we'll see conscription in the US in a matter of 6/9/12 months, not years. I think conscription is very much on the cards right now there. They've been laying the groundwork for it well enough so far.
Quote:
Likewise, China just has to start suggesting that it's thinking about selling its vast stores of US dollars and the US economy is on the skids.
This is a problem for the US of course - but Iran can't be allowed to sell its oil in Euros, because - as you know - this could prove potentially more damaging than China selling dollars. This is as much what the war in Iraq was about as it was bringing direct military control to Iraq's oil reserves. Iran is also a voice of independent nationalism in the region and therefore that's another reason to take it out. To a certain extent as well establishing some form of even more brutal military dictatorship than the current theological one and having it completely brought under US control would allow for a much more competetive US ecomony. As we know the reason why the US is so reliant on government bonds, and so reliant on the oil trading system that supports it (selling of oil in dollars as opposed to other currencies) is overall that - in terms of total capital that can be accredited to the US - it is a consuming economy, and not a producing one. To a certain extent the US has been trying to shore up this problem with such schemes as Plan Puebla Panama (a scheme to establish central America as one great free trade production and export corridor to flood the Chinese market), the bombing of Serbia (and subsequent reconstruction), the structural readjustment of Iraq to turn the country into a huge free trade zone. Add in Iran and the potential for another one of these free trade corridors to China becomes increasingly likely.
Once oil supplies absolutely fail to meet demand (I reckon some time this winter) then I think Iran will have to be attacked. China is too great a threat to allow it strategic control over its own energy supplies.
Quote:
All in all, very unlikely. But you're right, they'd really like to be able to do it.
"if we fight a total war our children will sing songs about us"
Does sound like the voice of sanity to you? 
Solidarity,
Nick [/i]
Nov 22 2005 14:12
#18
Nick Durie wrote:
I think conscription is very much on the cards right now there. They've been laying the groundwork for it well enough so far.
What is your reason for thinking this? As far as I can see, the low popularity of Bush, plus overt criticism of the Iraq occupation, make conscription very politically risky.
Nov 22 2005 15:06
#19
Yeah Nick you do seem to exaggerate a lot. I mean on this thread we've had:
- The US nuked Iraq - no they didn't
- the US is gonna nuke Iran - no they won't
- the US is gonna invade Iran soon - they probably won't
- the US is almost fascist - no it's not
- The US will have conscription within a year - no it won't
I think you should try to chill a bit...
Nov 22 2005 15:24
#20
Nick -- I'll bet you a fiver that the US won't introduce the draft in the next twelve months.
Nov 22 2005 15:26
#21
Take the bet! 
Nov 22 2005 15:31
#22
jimmer wrote:
Take the bet!
You think I'll lose? Take me up on it, then.
Nov 22 2005 15:33
#23
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
jimmer wrote:
Take the bet!You think I'll lose? Take me up on it, then.
I don't think he does no.
Yeah I'll bet you too Nick!
Nov 22 2005 15:37
#24
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
You think I'll lose? Take me up on it, then.
I was trying to help you make a fiver...
Nov 22 2005 15:38
#25
Curses 
Mind you, maybe I should offer odds... After all, a fiver is one pint in Oxford, or eight cans of Tennants in Glasgow
Nov 22 2005 17:11
#26
John. wrote:
- The US nuked Iraq - no they didn't
Tell that to everyone dying (or who have died) from cancer caused by DU, then.
Nov 22 2005 17:16
#27
oh come on DU is fucking horrible but it is not a fucking nuke, and certainly not in the sense it was being employed here.
Nov 22 2005 17:20
#28
You obviously haven't seen the mushroom clouds across Iraq have you, oh no wait a second...
Nov 22 2005 18:04
#29
Ted Heath's Ghost wrote:
John. wrote:
- The US nuked Iraq - no they didn'tTell that to everyone dying (or who have died) from cancer caused by DU, then.
I'll quite happily tell them that.
What a ridiculous argument. You're seriously trying to compare DU bombs, which have a small amount of dangerous dust in them, with nuclear weapons which can kill millions in an instant? A "nuke" is either an A- (fission) or H- (fusion) bomb. Calling other things "nukes" is like calling Tories "Nazis", but far stupider.
Nov 22 2005 19:15
#30
Yes, to be a nuclear weapon it has to have a big pretty explosion.
Quote:
Perhaps the most ironic factor in the whole occupation of Iraq is the idea that the United States invaded to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Since the invasion, WMDs have been turning up everywhere; not made by Saddam Hussein, but instead the Depleted Uranium (DU) used as a casing for American shells. New research has shown how DU dust given to rats causes cancer to quickly spread across their bodies. US soldiers from the first Gulf War are “twice as likely as others their age to get a fatal neurological disorder known as ALS - Lou Gehrig's disease.[1] More importantly, the battlefields of Iraq (as well as Yugoslavia), are covered in this dust. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) created a document [2] that described the use of DU by the US against Iraq. In it, they stated that "...some 700-800 tons of depleted uranium was used in bombing the military zones south of Iraq. Such a quantity has a radiation effect, sufficient to cause 500,000 cases which may lead to death." By using the weapon in 2004, the US and UK ignored international law and treaties signed between 1899 and 1996, while overlooking a UN resolution banning it [3]. The death toll within Iraq since 1991 of cancer and leukaemia has risen rapidly [4]. Previous IAEA research and mortality rates, amazingly, could see the death toll surpass more than a million deaths in the next few years. Cancer increased between seven and ten times in Iraq, while birth deformities increased between four and six times since 1991. Radiation levels in Basra’s flora and fauna has reached 84 times the recommended World Health Organisation limit. Some reports have even suggested that 44% of Basra’s 2-3 million population will contract cancer in their lifetime; Dr Jawad Al-Ali, an Iraqi oncologist in a Basra cancer clinic, and a member of the UK’s Royal Society of Physicians stated in 2001: “The desert dust carries death. Our studies indicate that more than forty percent of the population around Basra will get cancer. We are living through another Hiroshima.”[5]. Amazingly, due to sanctions, the survival rate of Leukaemia patients in Basra in 2001 was just 20%, yet with the right drugs it is 95%. People who had had successful operations often died soon after when the drugs ran out.[6]The use of DU dust as a weapon is hardly groundbreaking. While the US and UK assert that it is used solely as a means of destroying enemy armour, the effects are the same whether they had been purposefully spreading it as an element of deliberate germ warfare or not. Indeed, in a 1943 report by the U.S. War Department, they proposed the "Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon". Obviously, soon after followed the atrocities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But a new type of atrocity is under way. As that report states, radioactive materials as military weapons constitute:
1) a terrain contaminating material, the radioactive product of which would be spread on the ground and would affect personnel.
2) As a gas warfare instrument, the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicle, or aerial bombs
Note the second point. DU dust is left surrounding the impact locations of shells and bullets coated in DU. This means that tanks, vehicles and buildings remain covered in this dust. It is also worth bearing in mind that this is dust, and dust travels. It is fired from, primarily, armour or other armoured vehicles, the core of the ground forces in Iraq. There is no difference from its definition as a "gas warfare instrument", and its use in reality. Why then, is Saddam Hussein's use of poisionous gas a war crime when the use of DU isn't? Why do the 5000 people of Hallabja mean more than almost 50% of Basra's 2-3 million population?
Yes, WMDs are in Iraq. Bush and Blair and their SS murderers took them there.
[2] IAEA document GC(43)/INF/20 of 29 September 1999
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3453
4 http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/battelle1.html
5 http://www.savewarchildren.org/exhibitHistory.html
6 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/CoH.html
Well, when they go into Iran we'd better put on a better show than the StWC or any of the other trots.