< HOME  Thursday, February 09, 2006

Last-ditch Push for Peaceful Solution to Iran

Me thinks, to no avail.
"We are very concerned about double standards," [said Pol D'Huyvetter, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth, pointing to] the nuclear arsenal of the US and some European states and Israel.

"Why don't they address their own arsenal." "It is not an honest approach."

* * *

Over 215 Parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations are appealing for a peaceful solution on the issue of Iran's nuclear program.

Non-governmental organizations that have signed the appeal include International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Greenpeace, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the Association of World Citizens, the International Fellowship of Reconciliation and Abolition-2000, a network of over 2000 NGO's calling for a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.
We'll soon find out.

21 Comments:

At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Iran having a nuclear weapon worries me far less than a terrorist having a nuke.

When a country has a nuke, if they should use it, then they pretty much will be blasted to smithereens. If Iran ever did use a nuke on Israel, you could bet your bippy they won't live to see another day. So the arguments against Iran getting a nuke seem certainly hypocritical, given they are coming from a country that has enough nukes to blast the world twice.

On the other hand, if a terrorist gets a nuke and uses it, then there's no place to target the terrorists to get back at them. Non state actors getting such weapons thus pose an extreme risk to the world.

My only worry about Iran is the fear that they would sell a nuke to a terrorist. That is a real and justified threat to the world's existence.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

The worst terrorists are Jews and Israel--ck Judicial-inc.biz, this proven historically and conclusively. If anyone would do something dastardly it's Jews and Israel--THEY'RE THE PROBLEM, GET IT STRAIGHT.

What stupidity--"fear [Iran] would sell nuke to terrorist." And what illogic given previous verbiage in the post. Like I say, whatever is supposedly feared fm Iran, well, Israel (and Jews) have already done it or are more likely to do it.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Stop lumping Israel with all Jews. Not true. Israel may identify itself as a Jewish state. But, not all Jews support Israeli policies or zionism.

On numerous occasions you yourself have cited Jews who stand up for justice.

GET IT STRAIGHT.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Oh Appy, so predictable. *smiles* Good thing there's some stability in this crazy world of our's. Keep on with paranoid Jew hatin'. Reaaaaally helps your case.

Oh Appy, I would kiss you but I think my "Jew germs" might cause you to sprout horns and engage in satanic dances spontaneously.

You're so adorable.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Hey u can't leave off with that "ecstacy" u kikes so much enjoy indulging, eh? Good shit, huh?

I hope u kikes keep doing all the drugs u can--I believe that may well be in the cards. That way we gentiles will have better chance to nail u people and achieve some measure of freedom eh? Babble on Jew. Apollonian

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Just saw ur post, qrswave. I've established conclusively THAT U JUST FLAT DON'T KNOW WHAT U'RE TALKING ABOUT, OKAY. So how is anyone to take u seriously? U're just a joke. If a Jew doesn't support Israel, there's simply a "strategic" reason, that's all. U have the mind of . . . a ten-year old? Apollonian

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Appy is an adorable little urchin. I think I may adopt him.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Whoosh--but u don't quit do u?--hey, maybe u'll OD, eh?

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Jeff G said...

Oh Appy, I would kiss you but I think my "Jew germs" might cause you to sprout horns and engage in satanic dances spontaneously.

Ack! You mean he hasn't already?

Hey Q, I guess you better warm up the Zionic Transmogrifier.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Kikes are ganging up--I'm outa' here. Apollonian

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Jeff G said...

On a more serious note, Miss R makes a relevent distinction between state nukes and terrorist nukes.

Check out the Blogs by Iranians website. You can get a feel for how Iranians are viewing things.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

"non-state actors" is MSM double-speak. Non-state actors will disappear in 3 months if US withdraws its fleets and bases and forces and money from non-NATO countries - i.e. end the occupation of Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine etc. Stop aid to Hosni Mubarak and to Israel, leave Iraq . . . . . as I count this stuff I realize how deep in this sh*t the US is!

Instantly, the non-state actors become the rulers in the vacuum. They become responsible and answerable to people, and your nuke problem is solved.

Hamas, yesterday's non-state-actor, is today's responsible government, with the hearts and minds of the majority of its people.

That is the way to democracy and peace - not occupation for Zionism and cheap oil.

I believe blogs should not echo MSM doublespeak - it is non-doubleplus-good.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Well, it really is questionable whether such people "instantly" become the rulers of any region, without U.S. involvement.

I agree the U.S. is way too heavily inolved in the Middle East.

But...let's even look at Israel/Palestine. You have Hamas in power now. Assume Hamas becomes less radical and no longer advocates suicide bombing, because they are in power and have to be responsible to their people. (it's possible) Then what? There are already scores of other EVEN MORE RADICAL groups in Palestine. So it's questionable whether allowing the current dissatisfied and fractionalized groups to gain power really changes any dynamic.

There will always be terrorists in the world. There will always be fringe groups out to destroy the status quo. There will always be people who hate America. Some of these people in fact are Americans! (look at the Oklahoma City bombing) The question is how do we deal with, and contain this hate.

It's a real problem, because lately the hate has been spreading, not lessening.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did russia capitulate?

Why Russia caved-in on Iran
by Mike Whitney

http//www.opednews.com

Many war-weary newshounds are probably wondering why Russia caved in at the IAEA board meeting and agreed to have Iran sent before the UN Security Council. Russia, of course, is very familiar with Iran’s nuclear program (having worked with Iran on its nuclear power projects) and fully realizes that the Mullahs are not developing nuclear weapons.

So, why would they go along with the coercive manoeuvring of the United States that is so clearly designed to pave the way for war?

Obviously, Russia’s foreign minister’s comment that the referral to the UNSC is “only a warning” doesn’t adequately explain why Russia would have placed its ally in such grave danger of a pre-emptive attack.

So why did Russia capitulate?

It may be, in the words of the Godfather, that the Bush administration made Putin “a deal he couldn’t refuse”. For one thing, MosNews reports just yesterday that “Lukoil will replace the disgraced Halliburton” in providing fuel in Iraq. MosNews states, “Over three months beginning from April 1, LITASCO will have to deliver 180,000 tons of gasoline and 130,000 tons of diesel fuel to Iraq. After this the contract may be renewed.

Halliburton’s replacement was chosen by a tender, the results of which the Pentagon announced on March 8. The winners were six Turkish companies and the U.S. Refinery Associates which won the right to the largest contract worth $108.5 million.”

That’s a pretty hefty reward for Putin’s vote on Iran, but apparently it only scratches the surface. (We should also note the generous prizes handed out to the 6 Turkish companies. Is this Turkey’s payoff for using its bases in future military operations against Iran?)

Russia’s real goal, however, is “the securing of rights for exploration and extraction at the huge West Qurna-2 oil field.” Putin has always insisted that the Bush administration honor Saddam’s previous commitments with Lukoil. It appears now that Putin is winning that battle.

According to the Boston, Globe Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov met with Iraq’s oil minister Ibrahim al-Ulloum to firm up “an understanding” about Russia’s $6 billion contract to develop the West Qurna-2 oil field. Al-Ulloum, of course, is just following Washington’s directives in reviving the moribund Russian contract. But it is striking that Bush would surrender such an enormous trophy as one of Iraq’s main oil fields just to secure Russia’s vote.

Why?

Does the administration really need a war with Iran so desperately?

Yes.

The truth is, that even the control of oil is not nearly as critical to the US as maintaining it’s continued dominance in the exchange of oil in greenbacks. If Iran is allowed to open its oil bourse (exchange) in March and openly compete with the US’s monopoly on trading oil in petrodollars, the central banks across the globe will dump hundreds of billions of dollars overnight, and the American economy will disappear beneath the waves.

This is not fiction.

The reason the United States is the unchallenged leader of the global economic system is because it has a stranglehold on the oil trade. Even the oil itself, or the price at which it is sold, is of less importance than the means by which it is traded. The nation that controls the currency, determines the rules of the game. It forces other nations to stockpile mountains of its debt-ridden script, while Congress breezily produces oceans of red ink. America’s fat-cat bankers and corporatists are now living off the generosity of the developing world that must hold on to worthless dollars so they can purchase oil. Iran’s plan to sell its oil in petro-euros threatens to break up this massive extortion-ring and put the greenback nose-to-nose with its global competitor; the euro.

The Lukoil transaction should prove to sceptics that Washington is prepared to give up anything to prevent the opening of Iran’s oil exchange. The UN Security Council is just the last step before military operations begin.

The Bush administration is dead-set on attacking Iran and removing this existential threat to the American economy and the ongoing supremacy of the reserve currency.

Now that the case is in the Security Council, things should move ahead fairly quickly.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Very true - and we are nearing an agreement point on this.

Fringe groups will always exist but never enjoy the protection and support of the masses. Without this protection, they cannot build the infra-structure required for nuclear weapons, nor the training grounds, nor the financial and capital and planning room required.

The masses are alienated because their leaders are so utterly hopelessly and transparently beholden to the Western puppeteers that the only solution they see is in the violent overthrow of these governments.

Violent overthrow is not a bad idea: France did it, England did it, and the US was based on a violent rebellion and nurtured by the Civil War.

If you do not allow the legitimate expression of political will, and a ruler speaking for his country (like Ahmadinejad or Saddam), you invite the masses to willingly host "non-state-actors", as they are doing in Iraq now.

One building coming down in 100 years is no big deal (OKC attack) - many people get killed every day - and the organization behind OKC is nowhere to be found today - but Al-Qaeda is going to greater strengths every day.

And please spare me that Saddam was a bad man. He was very good to his people and held together the country with an iron will, providing education, opportuniy, jobs and food to his people.

He killed a few people to keep the country together - the US will end up killing 100 times more to keep the country together.

During the recent cartoon crisis, there were calls for "bin Laden strike" "bin Laden strike" in Sudan, London, Manila, Indonesia and Peshawar.

We should be afraid, very afraid! At the moment, secular governments have failed the Islamic world. The moment you de-occupy any Islamic country - the Islamists will take over.

I have thought about this on sleepless nights: The best strategy is to hand over the Middle East to bin Laden with a pledge not to attack the West for 100 years and agree on a protocol for oil price-fxing. He will keep his word - the people will make him keep it.

Alas - the above solution is inevitable - whichever we look at it. I have travelled far and wide in the Islamic world - the people are ONE - and solidly behind bin Laden - for he speaks for them, just as Hamas spoke the true aspirations of the Palestinians.

Alas - the above solution is inevitable but it will come about with the slow bleeding of both sides and attempts by both sides to annihilate the other.

The only other remotely plausible solution is for the UN to be replaced by true representative world government with binding courts. Dream on.

The whole world should be afraid.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Although I did not quite understand hwat actually changed in his brain when Sharon went brain-dead recently, his unilateral withdrawal and building the wall was in preparation for the inevitability of an Islamist Middle East and US withdrawal.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Akber, you're funny.

I think you're right. This kind of oppression cannot go on indefinitely. Every empire has its end.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

By golly, but what happened to the Jew-Jews?--did they die?

Okay qrswave, note I've got u surrounded on all blogs here. Note all bloggers in blogger-land see it too: WHAT IS UR ARGUMENT, IN point of fact and SIMPLEST TERMS, REGARDING REJECTION OF CHARGING OF INTEREST FOR PRIVATE LOANS?

All u gotta do is just lay it out, bip, bam; leave off with the illustrations and extraneous commentary: why is interest charging wrong (as for private debts)? Spit it out. Apollonian

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger efsaturn said...

Excuse me for stepping in here.

This is answered in much much earlier blogs. And all the links. Put in simple terms this is my answer.

Charging interest and fractional banking are inheritantly flawed. There would NEVER be enough $ to pay the principal and the loans without creating more loans.

Apollo.
Why do you feel that interest is so important?

If corporations were motivated by other than provide, like their long term effects on the planet and its resources then maybe interest wouldn't be such a problem.

And the problem isn't just the interest. The central bank and the federal reserve are out of the control of our gov't and owed by private investors. This doesn't seem right.

Why can't you apollo think outside of the box? I would think that you wouldn't want the Jewish folk you speak of to have any more power, money or control.

I'm getting my US dollars out of my accounts and getting gold and silver. I don't want to be left holding an empty bag when Bush and his cronies left us all empty handed and starving. Hopefully I will survive long enough that I will be able to exchange the gold for the stable currency of the time.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger efsaturn said...

"provide" = profit. Must have other things on my mind.

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Hello "efsaturn," and thanks for ur sober-minded down-to-earth commentary--unlike the Jew psychos who clutter this site.

Pls see my essay on "The 1913 Federal Reserve Act" under "essays" heading on WhiteAlert.com.

I absolutely agree with u for all ur points given and made; u're absolutely right about fractional-reserve money and banking--but this isn't the issue I'm attempting to resolve w. qrswave who says ALL INTEREST CHARGING IS WRONG OR UNETHICAL.

My point follows fm the eminent G.Edward Griffin's "Creature From Jekyll Island" masterpiece where he points out that in an economy with real commodity money, there's no problem w. charging interest--it's simply a matter of contract between parties who, in a real system of rule-of-law, have the right to make any contracts they please.

Qrswave wants to insist all interest charging of whatever sort under any circumstances is wrong--which to me is obviously absurd. And I simply challenged her to give the bare, formulaic argument as to WHY--she simply can't. And now like the typical Jew, she just wants to wiggle around and pretend I have to prove why her argument fails (her conclusion has no premises, resting upon mere declaration). Ck the blog, this site, "Snow Must Go" to look at qrswave's pathetic excuses and gestures for verification. Thanks for ur comments. Apollonian

 

Post a Comment

<< Home