I'm not sure if the top of the line BB's take special planes, but they are much bigger than the ones that the Israelis have. If absolutely neccesary, IMO, the best of all possible remedies would be a combined military operation to decimate Iran’s 25 to 30 military and nuclear sites, launched by a coalition involving the U.S., the EU, Israel and some of the panic-stricken Arab countries, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia

As far as war with Iran, no rational person welcomes such a thing. However, I do think clear headed people have concluded two things:

Iran wants at least the capability of making weaponized nukes very fast and they are well on the way of achieving that goal

Sanctions will not stop them from meeting that goal

So if the west and its allies are serious about stopping a nuclear Iran, war is the option. Is it worth it? Who knows?

Bibi Netanyahu knows.

I don't think even Bibi knows or Bibi wants a war IF there was a way to deter Iran without it. The thing is that Israel's feeling that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat is not irrational. How can Israelis or anyone else know what would/will happen if Iran isn't stopped?

I'm not sure if the top of the line BB's take special planes, but they are much bigger than the ones that the Israelis have. If absolutely neccesary, IMO, the best of all possible remedies would be a combined military operation to decimate Iran’s 25 to 30 military and nuclear sites, launched by a coalition involving the U.S., the EU, Israel and some of the panic-stricken Arab countries, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia

I see you corrected to 'are', wasn't sure if you meant aren't though I guessed 'are'

Don't see any of the Arab states getting involved to that degree myself UG. Then we have the problem of a power vacuum.

The thing is that Israel's feeling that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat is not irrational. How can Israelis or anyone else know what would/will happen if Iran isn't stopped?

IMO Iran seems intent on a suicide mission and that intent has been going on for quite some time. Does the world want this mission to happen with conventional weapons (or semi conventional weapons) or with nukes?

The leader of Iran started going on again about the 12th Mahdi (Christians call him the anti-Christ) at the UN the other day and the cult that run Iran believe that they need to cause chaos in the world to bring him forth. That belief and a nuke are a bad combination.

The leader of Iran started going on again about the 12th Mahdi (Christians call him the anti-Christ) at the UN the other day and the cult that run Iran believe that they need to cause chaos in the world to bring him forth. That belief and a nuke are a bad combination.

To many, the 12th lives down a well someplace in Iran and Ahmadinejad done a pilgrimage there some years back leaving a note.

I'll see if I can find links.

Can't find it after a couple of minutes so have nothing to back it up.

The leader of Iran started going on again about the 12th Mahdi (Christians call him the anti-Christ) at the UN the other day and the cult that run Iran believe that they need to cause chaos in the world to bring him forth. That belief and a nuke are a bad combination.

-rubbish does not become true even if repeated very often.

-calling the big-mouthed dwarf Ahmadinejad "leader of Iran" is utmost ridiculous.

-"12th Mahdi called anti-Christ by Christians" is evidence of "possessing a wealth of no idea about Islam and Shia".

One Christian's theory on the identity of the anti-Christ.

Glenn Beck is a wacko, but his take on the "Twelvers" is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCQS_y3H0QU

I understand WMD to be nuclear weapons, not chemical and biological.

Nope, quick search and found this...

WMD is a standard acronym for "Weapon of Mass Destruction". The term is often used synonymously with NBC or NBCR (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Radiological) weapon. These are a class of weapons sharing certain important characteristics. The most important is that they are capable of inflicting extremely large numbers of casualties when used against civilian targets. Secondarily, they are usually of limited military use. This can be because casualties are long delayed from time of exposure or because counter-measures for protecting military targets are either cheap, making them useless against enemy military forces, or essentially impossible, leading to a deadlock in which opposing military forces benefit from bilaterally relinquishing their use.

http://www.wisegeek....destruction.htm

OK, notmyself, I stand corrected! But in that case I find it odd that most articles about Syria do not mention WMD, even though Asad is known to have chemical and biological weapons (and don't bother searching; I'm sure you can find one or two if you look!).

I understand WMD to be nuclear weapons, not chemical and biological.

Nope, quick search and found this...

WMD is a standard acronym for "Weapon of Mass Destruction". The term is often used synonymously with NBC or NBCR (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Radiological) weapon. These are a class of weapons sharing certain important characteristics. The most important is that they are capable of inflicting extremely large numbers of casualties when used against civilian targets. Secondarily, they are usually of limited military use. This can be because casualties are long delayed from time of exposure or because counter-measures for protecting military targets are either cheap, making them useless against enemy military forces, or essentially impossible, leading to a deadlock in which opposing military forces benefit from bilaterally relinquishing their use.

http://www.wisegeek....destruction.htm

OK, notmyself, I stand corrected! But in that case I find it odd that most articles about Syria do not mention WMD, even though Asad is known to have chemical and biological weapons (and don't bother searching; I'm sure you can find one or two if you look!).

I have read some articles in days past that politicians (Obama, et al) have threatened Assad and warned him not to use chemical weapons against his own people. Nothing recent however.

I recall being told by some senior Saudi naval officers that Saddam sent all his WMDs to Syria before the US came in. Who knows, but Assad surely has some at his disposal.

I recall being told by some senior Saudi naval officers that Saddam sent all his WMDs to Syria before the US came in. Who knows, but Assad surely has some at his disposal.

I believe Syria has admitted to having CBWs which why there was no comment when US intelligence said they were being moved the other day. Moved to more secure areas I suppose.

In the years before the Iraqi liberation a number of shipments were intercepted but it would seem unlikely that all did. I'm not sure Saddam would have been prepared to hand some to Syria though, given how close they are with Iran. More likely (if not self manufactured) they came from Iran who had the means of production due to both sides using them during the years of Iran/Iraq wars. We know from the weapons inspectors that Saddam had destroyed some of the CBWs but was doing so very slowly and no way the whole lot could have been done so where are they? I suspect that one day a large cache will be found under the same in some out of the way place or maybe that's just wishful thinking. If they are not buried then there are an awful lot of CBWs floating around somewhere.

Things are heating up in Iran. Quite interesting.

Tensions over the plunging value of Iran’s currency sparked clashes between protesters and security forces in the capital Wednesday, the most significant unrest there in two years and a possible prelude to a more serious threat to political stability.

http://www.washingto...7057_story.html

Obama will be forced to take the protesters side this time. It could even save his job.

This is nothing to do with a nuclear threat and the government of Iran.

This is the fact that the Iranian currency has unofficially devalued by 40% in the past week, thus doubling the price of goods in the shops - hitting the man-in-the-street, not the government.

All caused by the boycott of Iranian exports (oil) by the West. No way this will tone down the government of Iran - they will just point at the USA and say 'There is the cause of your poverty'.

Sanctions seldom work as the countries imposing them desire. Just keep the smug politicians happy, so that they can tell their electorate that they are 'acting' on the problem. Usually they are exacerbating the problem.

I agree sanctions rarely work. But on the other hand I suppose there's a tiny chance the Iranian people may revolt making the connection between the extremism of their government and the harsh sanctions. I suppose it's in the realm of the possible, if very unlikely.

I agree sanctions rarely work. But on the other hand I suppose there's a tiny chance the Iranian people may revolt making the connection between the extremism of their government and the harsh sanctions. I suppose it's in the realm of the possible, if very unlikely.

Do you reckon they will be as effective as the reparations after World War One?

SC

I agree sanctions rarely work. But on the other hand I suppose there's a tiny chance the Iranian people may revolt making the connection between the extremism of their government and the harsh sanctions. I suppose it's in the realm of the possible, if very unlikely.

Do you reckon they will be as effective as the reparations after World War One?

SC

I don't see the connection. Maybe you can explain.

I agree sanctions rarely work. But on the other hand I suppose there's a tiny chance the Iranian people may revolt making the connection between the extremism of their government and the harsh sanctions. I suppose it's in the realm of the possible, if very unlikely.

Do you reckon they will be as effective as the reparations after World War One?

SC

I don't see the connection. Maybe you can explain.

When we persecute the people of a nation, we rarely win friends.

Letting Iran develop a nuclear bomb would be madness and sanctions are better than bombing them into the stone age. We really do not have a lot of choices.

Aha! So Ahmadinejad is also to blame for the crisis as well as the sanctions, and so far the people are blaming Ahmadinejad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/food-prices-inflation-rise-sharply-in-iran/2012/10/04/44521436-0e69-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

Analysts say Iran’s problems are only partly because of tough sanctions enacted by the United States and its allies in an effort to force Iran to alter its nuclear policies. Of at least equal importance are domestic policies, advocated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that led to the phasing out of a popular subsidy program that had kept prices for many staples artificially low.

http://www.guardian....m-syrian-rebels

Romney wants to arm the Syrian rebels to counter Iran's aid to Asad. If that's not escalation both of the Syrian conflict, AND the "dispute" between the West and Iran, I don't know what is .

Vote for Romney, anyone?

I am not for intervening militarily in Syria, but I can certainly see the case for arming the people of Syria who have been getting slaughtered for almost 2 years. Romney may be making the right move here, but the situation is rather tricky.

I am not for intervening militarily in Syria, but I can certainly see the case for arming the people of Syria who have been getting slaughtered for almost 2 years. Romney may be making the right move here, but the situation is rather tricky.

You mean arming the Sunni people of Syria, supported by Al Qaeda, Iraqi and Saudi religious factions against the Alawi (a Shia sect) government. This is an internal, religious, civil war. We have no business there whatsoever.

Saw an item in the Israeli press indicating the idea of a strike on Iran's nuke facilities is off the table for now and early next year to wait and see what the upshot is of the domestic unrest in Iran. In other words, they are saying that Israel is feeling the sanctions are working and might meet their objectives without escalation.

My guess is that Israel is waiting to see if Romney is elected. They don't trust Obama not to throw them under the bus after the election, but they do trust Romney to back them up if the sanctions do not work.

Saw an item in the Israeli press indicating the idea of a strike on Iran's nuke facilities is off the table for now and early next year to wait and see what the upshot is of the domestic unrest in Iran. In other words, they are saying that Israel is feeling the sanctions are working and might meet their objectives without escalation.

How can the sanctions possibly be working when the Obama administration has granted waivers to most of Iran's largest trading partners, including most of the EU, Turkey, China, Japan and India?

This entire sanction business is a charade.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China, Singapore Exempted From U.S. Iran Oil Sanctions

By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan and Terry Atlas - Jun 29, 2012 3:02 PM GMT+0700

The U.S. said China and Singapore have “significantly reduced” their purchases of Iranian oil, earning exemptions from U.S. financial sanctions that otherwise would have been imposed yesterday.

China was the biggest importer of Iranian crude last year, and Singapore is Asia’s oil trading and refining hub. The U.S. granted renewable, 180-day exemptions on March 20 to Japan and 10 European Union nations. India, South Korea, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Taiwan won exemptions June 11.

“A total of 20 world economies have now qualified for such an exception,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “Their cumulative actions are a clear demonstration to Iran’s government that Iran’s continued violation of its international nuclear obligations carries an enormous economic cost.”

Read more here: http://www.bloomberg...-sanctions.html

The meltdown of the value of the Iranian currency is directly linked to the sanctions.

The meltdown of the value of the Iranian currency is directly linked to the sanctions.

I'll have to visit friends in Isfahan and bring back some more carpets.

My guess is that Israel is waiting to see if Romney is elected. They don't trust Obama not to throw them under the bus after the election, but they do trust Romney to back them up if the sanctions do not work.

Which is one reason why I wouldn't vote for Romney.

HB, you'd better be quick before the balloon (or something) goes up!