Top Story
What Michelle Obama Means to Us
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
OSU routs Michigan 42-7, Buckeyes get Big 10 share
 
 
expand
CAPITAL SOURCES

Power Players

What the U.S. should do about Iran's nuclear program.

By Daniel Stone | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 14, 2008 | Updated: 4:30  p.m. ET Jul 14, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: berenger @ 07/19/2008 5:25:19 PM

    Comment: HG, I can't believe anyone who can write as clearly, and at the same time as ridiculoulsy, as you can be for real. Unless you are schizophrenic. I think you are just trying to keep the conversation going because you set up any objections to every argument you give. So does raddave. Sure, he is a weapons of mass destruction expert who doesn't think DU is toxic. I thought the US was opposed to biological weapons etc, yet we all know we have them. I am out of this loopy merrygoround of a "debate." Too bad there isn't more real interest. At least some folks may do more research.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/19/2008 10:41:12 AM

    Comment: To berenger: Uranium came from the ground, and it is a much needed memorial for the war. 'Lest we forget.' Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. What esle are we going to do with it, sell it it to Iran for nuclear fuel?? Make even more rounds of DU? It has to exist someplace, Moving the civilian population may be cheaper than any cleanup attempt. Has anyone looked at the cost of the cleanup? I remember Love Canal with its chemical pollutants. They gave up and just moved the town. DU will be far more costly to clean up. Let them have their Arlington, their Gettysburg, their Arizona.

    As far as military influence, the military in the US is a tool of the civilian government. Don't forget that in the US the commander in cheif is ALWAYS a civilian. We promote peace in the Middle East by being a proxy army for the peaceful governments. We give the peaceful, true Muslim, governments a way to remove a military threat without having to raise permanent armies of their own. Once we leave there will be a much smaller military prescence in the long run. We are already cutting down, the Iraqi locals are increasing their effectiveness, and today's news shows an increasing interest on a target exit date. Patience is a virtue. I believe peace will win out in the end, but not today. We are looking at an area of the world where conquest has been the order of the day for millenia. How many 'empires' have come and gone since biblical times? I'm not sure what that does to the collective pshcye. When people get used to violence then violence becomes too acceptable. Too many of those insurgent bombs are targeted at Iraqi civilians. Others are targeted at Iraqi internal security. If the bombs were all targeted at US troops we would be out of there in the next plane.

    We lost in Vietnam from a military standpoint. Our interaction with the civilian population brought our way of life to them. Now Vietnam is the fastest growing economy in the world because of the ideas we planted years ago. By the time we leave Iraq we will have sown the seed they need to grow. Be patient.

    God answwers all prayer. Sometimes the answer is no, but other times the answer is 'not yet, but it is coming.'

  • Posted By: intermedusa @ 07/19/2008 12:56:52 AM

    Comment: IRAN WANTS A NUCLEAR WEAPON NOT FOR SECURITY BE FOR DOMINATION AND NAKED AGGRESSION: Part 1

    By,

    Larry Houle
    www.godofreason.com
    e-mail: www.intermedusa@yahoo.com

    Iran desperately wants a nuclear weapon to dominate the Middle East. If they succeed, there will be a nuclear war. When Ahamadinejad says he will destroy Israel he means it. Israel will attack first with nuclear weapons if necessary and turn Iran into a wasteland.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme ruling Alloyatolls see the 21st century not as the century of the rise of China or India but as the century of the Great Shiite Revival - the Rise of the Shiites. After 1400 years of Sunni domination and oppression, they see Sunni dominance not only in the Middle East but over Islam itself coming to an end.

    Ahamadinejad wants to establish a Great Shiite Persian Empire stretching from Tehran to the Red Sea and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caucasus regions of Russia, to the very borders of China - incorporating all the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, under the direct control or controlled as vassal states by Iran. This empire would directly control 80% of the entire world oil supply. Oil will soar to $10.00/20.00 per gallon. Iran is a mortal threat not only to Israel but to all the Sunni Arab States. Only the might of the United States stands in the way of this Great Imperial Dream.

    There is the saying "When times get tough - the tough get going." Unfortunately at this moment - with the total lack of any kind of Western Leadership, this saying has been replaced by "When times get tough - the tough get talking and talking and talking." In the West talking has become a form of appeasement - a way to show that action is being taken - that the tough Western dudes are beating up on Ahmadinejad, when in reality we're getting our clocks cleaned. Ahmadinejad is going for the Great World Political Poker Championship jackpot with a pair of deuces. Everyone sitting at the game knows that all he has to play is a pair of twos and nobody is calling his hand. Its time to stop playing pocket polo. Its time to call his bluff with our 8 pairs of aces.

    You need to deal with Iran now otherwise the US will be left at one minute to midnight with no other option but to attack Iran. The longer the US waits to impose a meaningful sanction regime against Iran, the greater the necessity of military action will become - with all the potential disastrous political and economic consequences for both parties.



  • Posted By: intermedusa @ 07/19/2008 12:55:49 AM

    Comment: IRAN WANTS A NUCLEAR WEAPON NOT FOR SECURITY BE FOR DOMINATION AND NAKED AGGRESSION: Part 2

    By,

    Larry Houle
    www.godofreason.com
    e-mail: www.intermedusa@yahoo.com

    The Iranian Sanction Agreements negotiated by the Security Council are an absolute joke. The US is allowing these countries to delay and obstruct sanctions against Iran.

    THE REALITY IS THE US DOES NOT NEED CHINA OR RUSSIA TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN. THE US CAN IMPOSE DEVASTATING RECIPROCAL SANCTIONS


    The United States with or without EU support immediately imposes economic and political sanctions against Iran. ANY INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, COUNTRY THAT DISOBEYS ANY PART OF THE SANCTION REGIME - THEN THE TOTALITY OF THE ENTIRE SANCTION REGIME IMMEDIATELY APPLIES TO THEM. THE EU AND CHINA ENJOY A MASSIVE TRADE SURPLUS WITH USA WHICH THEY WILL NOT RISK

    DEFCON 5 SANCTIONS

    Under Defcon 5 sanctions Iran is immediately hit with the following measures:

    1. The cutting off of all military and nuclear technology, materials, training, building including the Bushehr nuclear power plant being built by the Russians.

    2. The suspension of all flights - both private and commercial aircraft in or out of Iran.

    3. The worldwide banning of all Iranian passports.

    4. Severing all banking relationships between all Iranian Government agencies/officials/organizations, banks, companies, front companies with the entire world banking community.

    5. The freezing of all Iranian assets throughout the world including all assets of Iranian Government, Iranian companies, front companies, government officials/organizations.


    DEFCON 4

    In 30 days, if Iran refuses to stop all uranium enrichment and sit down at the table in good faith then the imposition of the following Defcon 4 Sanctions:

    1. The immediate stoppage of all forms of transportation coming in or out of Iran including, buses, automobiles, boats. Only oil tankers would be exempt.

    2. Cutting off of all satellite signals, phone lines, internet connections, electricity etc.

    3. The complete closure of all border crossings to Iran.

    4. The complete shutting down of all economic activity/trade with the outside world except for the importation of gasoline into Iran and the export of oil and gas out of Iran.

    DEFCON 3

    Thirty days after the imposition of Defcon 4 sanctions, the start of Defcon 3:

    1. The importation of gasoline into Iran to be ceased by all countries, companies and individuals.

    DEFCON 2

    120 days after the start of the first sanction regime - Defcon 2 ??? the stoppage of all payments for Iranian oil and gas exports ??? NOT THE STOPPAGE OF THE EXPORT OF IRANIAN OIL AND GAS. JUST THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE PRODUCTS.


    DEFCON 1

    The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.

    Any force against Iran must be as a last, last resort. This includes any naval blockade. These are measures to be used only if and when Iran is on the verge of getting a bomb.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/19/2008 4:22:55 PM

      Comment: SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!.................ON YOUR MARK................

  • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 11:05:34 PM

    Comment: Holly Garfield, I think you are a ringer on this thread. You have a justification for leaving nuclear waste in Iraq so they don't forget it and for invading--even if only for oil and the other clandestine 10%. I can't take you for real. Is that another flying fish coming my way. That one was cold, too.

    "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it."

    "In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

    both by Ike, the General

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 8:22:21 PM

    Comment: To berenger: 90% right in my opinion. Oil, and oil today, is a huge key to global advances that can feed and save millions of people. The other 10% is that the majority of the gulf states have mostly symbolic military forces, are peaceful and happy to be so, and we would be very happy to keep it that way.

    On the other hand, the good that the oil from Iraq can offer the developing nations may be a pretty good justification for our invasion. It runs our cars, but also runs rice harvesters and emerging nations' factories, hospitals and food trucks.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 8:10:51 PM

    Comment: To berenger: It's OK with me if you believe we invaded Iraq on our own. Until I look at how the whole political picture works, and based on guesses as to what is happening that we never see, I was of the same opinion. Only when I went back and say to myself 'why this, it doesn't make any sense' that I start seeing some possible back room machinations that the public can never know about for sure. My guess is based solely on my games playing background. The global public is supposed to think what you are thinking. We are currently the world's policeman, and that means we take being viewed as the bully, invader, or whatever. If what I guess is true, that the Gulf states invited us in to take care of Saddam, and it became public, then the whole Middle East would be in disarray. I have no facts to back up my suspicions, only that the total picture makes more sense.

    As far as feeling helpless, you are far from alone. We are a nation of over 300 million people. A single person without huge resources does not, and can not, have much influence. It is the combination of of numbers of people who feel the same, or large corporations, themselves made up of large numbers of people, who have the large influence. I have written to both my Representative and Senator on our financial issues, since I am a private investor trying to stay retired. My Representative wrote back a form letter with a little personal line, a couple of times. My Senator did not reply. The Senator has a whole large state and his teammate was running for President. They don't have time to reply to everyone, or even most letters. But these letters still get read and noted. However, I noted that almost everything I said became part of Congressional or FBI action after the letters had been received. I am sure I was not the only one with my concerns, but at least I know that my beliefs were right.

    I see no reason why any one individual should be heard as much as a large corporation or government insider. Corporations are made up of many individuals, and government insiders represent large groups of people If you had a group with the size and the interest of a large corporation then you would be heard just as loud. But then you would be a large corporation yourself. A corporation with the interest of 100,000 employees and stockholders will be heard 100,000 times as loud as one person. This only means that each person gets as much weight as the next. One person, one voice. 100,000 people, 100,000 voices.That's why this country has a wide host of orgainzations to gather people with a common interest together. Try joining an orgainzation with a large number of people with your interests if you want to be heard. Or attend a public meeting with your representative. Check for his/her personal office visits near you. If you want your voice to count more than the next person I am sure there are ways, but I don't have any details myself as to what they are.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 10:53:04 PM

      Comment: Comment: I was referring to the rights of all the people superceding that of industry, not just mine. This may be the wrong forum.
      Anyway, You asked for an invader, whether other nations are in on it or not, we did it. I can not justify the luxury and necessity of gas anymore than leaving nuclear waste in Iraqi neighborhoods and deserts. Not a good reason for a democratically elected leader to lie to his people and military and invade another country under a ruse.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 4:55:36 PM

    Comment: A hard time? You didn't shoot any Abrams rounds at me. I'll survive. I deserved it.

    To berenger: on our agression and others opinions. I understand that a single US Nimitz aircraft carrier has more military might than the combined forces of most nations. We are very intimidating just showing up for a quick friendly visit. Also we build aircraft carriers so that Dubai can build indoor ski resorts in the middle of the desert. The Muslim based nations seem to have a bit of reluctance to shoot at each other, even if they want to. I question how much of the Middle East agression is US and how much is the others not wanting to get their hands dirty. That information is probably extremely classified, and extremely dangerous if it got out. I wonder how much JP5 is made from their oil.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 9:34:14 PM

      Comment: It has alot to do with them not wanting to get their hands dirty. Saudi Arabia pretty much financed Desert Storm.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 4:17:52 PM

    Comment: To raddave, I open mouth, insert foot. Hitler was a dictator when he invaded Poland. The rest I'll eat my dirty socks on.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 4:26:07 PM

      Comment: I just had to give you a hard time.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 4:14:09 PM

    Comment: To berenger: I base my opinion on agressiveness of leaders based on facts, not on some people's opinions.

    Yes, Saddam Hussein fired the first shot when he invaded Kuwait, gassed the Kurds, evaded the sanctions he agreed to in the Gulf War 1 surrender, etc. When Saddam Hussein violated the terms he agreed to end Gulf War 1 he made the next steps a continuation of that war. He left no doubt that he had not changed and would be an continuous danger to the Middle East if left alone. He was given his chances to meet the conditions he agreed to meet for the safety of the whole area. The US was hardly an uninvited guest. Could we have succeeded without the support of other Middle East nations? Would we even be there if we didn't have their support? Could any military force in the Middle East oppose Saddam. Even Iran, with their might, didn't have any luck with Saddam. If any Middle East nation had the capability of deposing Saddam would we even be allowed in, even with 9/11? The only reason we are there is because we are the only nation with the guns, bombs and soldiers. I doubt we were there because raddave likes playing in the sand, roasting marshmallows over a burning T72 shell. We are there so that the other gulf countries don't have to build an army. That's a big difference from being the agressor. We may have been chomping at the bit, but we were the gun being fired by other Gulf nations.

    I call the Japanese in question your Japanese because you were the one who referenced them in this conversation. This differentiates them from the Imperial Japanese that continued the war well after defeat was unavoidable.

    There is a big difference between the election of President Bush (either one) and the election of Saddam Hussein and numerous other 'elected' leaders. Bona fide safe and open campaigns, free press with full, unfettered access to the candidates and free, secret ballots with no death threats if you ran or voted against the ruler is more than a bit of a difference. Elections from Iran are getting a little better. Even Russia is still a single party, don't dare oppose the leader, country. Zimbabwe is another prominent case. If anyone thinks our elections are not free they should try running as an opposition candidate in Zimbabwe.

    The peaceful Muslims may complain, but they lack the ability to be heard in their government and social structure. In the governments of too many Middle East, and other emerging areas, complaining comes with far more danger from the government than in the US. We have Vietnam protestors in Congress, government and business leadership positions. Saddam Hussein's protestors got a mass grave outside Abu Ghraib.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 10:46:27 PM

      Comment: I was referring to the rights of all the people superceding that of industry, not just mine. This may be the wrong forum.
      Anyway, You asked for an invader, whether other nations are in on it or not, we did it. I can not justify the luxury and necessity of gas anymore than leaving nuclear waste in Iraqi neighborhoods and deserts.Not a good reason for a democratically elected leader to lie to his people and military and invade another country under a ruse.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 8:48:27 PM

      Comment: Whether Saddam violated the U.N resolutions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf war is open to debate. He had suspended his nuclear program, verified in 1993 by the IAEA that had control of all of Iraqs nuclear material. He did discontinue his chemical and biological programs and destroyed all of his WMDs. The Saudi Army has almost as modern army as ours. Iran's army is a very capable army. They in fact did have luck against Iraq and sucessfully defended their country against the Iraqi Army and possibly could have defeated them, if the U.S. did not start supplying Iraq with weapons.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 7:31:09 PM

      Comment: I think the only reason we are there is because they have oil, not because of Saddam's oppressive rule or out of loyalty to Isreal. It is only for oil, or we'd never pay them any of them any mind at all.....unless they had something else we needed or wanted, that is. I truly do believe this.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 5:18:30 PM

      Comment: I don't really see this war as a logical conclusion of the first gulf war. That conflict was over, as far as the American people and the rest of the world were concerned, but not the Administration.
      There were no weapons of mass destruction found. Is there some other reason you feel we had the right to invade. Or that Sadam actually took the first step. I thought Raddav said he felt this invasion was unjustifed earlier. I never thought he liked what he was doing there or was just playing around.
      There may be differences in our elections, but as a resident of one of the contentious states, we had a lot of irregulaties. I do not believe Bush won either time. I still say I have the inability as an American citizen to be heard and listened to in proportion to those of us who speak for multi-national companies and government insiders. I can holler, write my congress, blog, write more letters, but in essence that's all I do. No one seriously considers my requests, IMO. This is not only on war, but industry, food safety, environmental issues, energy policies, health care, etc. That said, I do not want to leave America, I just see more democracy and and less aggression. Also, I would like to see the will and welfare of the people be considered over that of corportaions and political power plays. You might be surprised at some limitations put on the press.
      But, back to the point, I maintain that Bush invaded Iraq.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 8:52:03 PM

        Comment: Yes, I did not think the invasion of Iraq was justified.I do think the invasion of Afghanistan was fully justified.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 2:03:27 PM

    Comment: To berenger: I am against war, I only disagree with you on how to stop the next one. Burying the dead makes creating even more dead too easy. Bury the human bodies, but leave the scars on the earth open. Like the jungles of Vietnam, they will heal on their own far too soon.

    To raddave: that's exactly what I thought.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 1:56:13 PM

    Comment: To berenger: Democratic leaders have not been the ones starting the wars. At least not ones with legitimate open elections. I am sure your Japanese would have stopped WWII and saved my cousin on Okinawa and the rest, but even the emperor was hard put to surrender. His surrender message was almost stopped by the military elite. The Middle East may be the cradle of civilization, but it is the area that is last to leave the cradle. The peaceful religious prevasion of society is constantly warped into perversion by the leaders as an excuse for conquest. Very interesting since all three religions actually all worhship the god of Abraham. Its nothing more than an extended, 2 millenium family feud from my viewpoint. And family feuds combined with religion leaves logic and negotiation next to useless. The rest of the world is getting increasingly peaceful. The peaceful Middle Easterners complain. My good friend complained, he was put in prison, wandered to Germany, Japan and Britian with nothing more than what he could carry, and is now a happy graphic artist. It is not that they complain, its that complaining is ineffective. The US has a disaster in Kent State, Cambodia had silence from the Killng Fields. The Vietnam protest leaders are now peaceful, productive members of the US society. My Iranian soldier friend is also a peacful, productive member of US society. Therein lies the difference. And, my friend said, that even today most Japanese have never heard of Pearl Harbor. But an increasing percentage of the Arizona memorial visitors are Japanese.

    I can't think of any recent war where a democratically elected leader fired the first shot. I'll defer to raddave on the 'appalling language', but I understand that kind of attitude is necessary for a soldier to do his job.

    My local Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, Karen, Bantu, etc, etc. in my area, Utica, NY, get along just fine. Our local refugee center has to constantly change interpreters, as this is the area of first choice for persecuted immigrants. I don't know where you are located, but here in today's melting pot there is almost non-existent religious friction. On the other hand I have a former neighbor that probably doesn't like me because of my black, but American, tenant.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 4:01:59 PM

      Comment: While not a democratic leader, Hitler won a legitimate election. In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt that started the Six Day War. In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon, which lead to the formation of Hezbollah. While not recent wars, in the War of 1812, the U.S. declared war on England and attacked Canada. In the Civil War, the CSA government was democratically elected and attacked Ft. Sumpter. I know I am being a nit picky, but hey why not? ha ha ha.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 3:23:56 PM

      Comment: Holly, I asked only facetiously about your local Christians and Jews as you made a point of talking about your local Muslims. My statement was directed more to the point of your asserting that the peaceful Muslims are uncomplaining about their aggressive leaders. I was pointing out that the US is certainly regarded by many to have aggressive leaders, and so is Isreal. I do concede that Isreal is in a bad position, but they also often make their own situation worse. Even many Jews believe this. My husband and children are Jewish, so I???m not just blabbing or anti-Zionist rhetoric. Since you asked, I live among people of diverse races and religions.

      While I am not sure why you call them ???my Japanese??? as they do not belong to me, I do consider us all belonging to the same human race, so anyway. I can not condemn the whole nation because of those who died in WWII; you are certainly not alone there. It doesn???t really make sense to me as any nation would be held to the same standard and no one would ever get on with the peace process.

      As for one example of ???any recent war where a democratically elected leader ( Well, some say Bush wasn???t actually the democratically elected winner, but for argument???s sake) fired the first shot,??? how about the US invasion of Iraq that we are involved in. Did Iraq fire the first shot?

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 1:03:40 PM

    Comment: To berenger continued:

    Raddave said that there are other alternative, but they are not as effective. In war if it is not as effective then it is not an alternative. He needs the best when he is in that tank, and the footsoldiers outside that tank need it even more. I'm not letting those brave soldiers down.

    The US does not go to war easily. In the case of Iraq it was bound to happen sooner or later. The sooner and more controlled our entry the safer it is for our soldiers. Once we are in that war we need to have the best, most effective weapons and armor available. Second best is no option. Anything but DU is second best.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 1:12:35 PM

      Comment: Thanks Holly but I am not a tanker, so I won't be an any tanks. I am a Chemical, Biological, Radiation, and Nuclear weapons specialist. That is why I know so much about D.U. However, there has not been a need for CBRN specialists in Iraq, since after the invasion. I spent half of my tour in a gun truck performing security escort misisons.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 1:02:05 PM

    Comment: To berenger: you provide me with the perfect example of what I am saying. You hate the dirtiness, spread of disease, destroyed lives of the civilian population and returning veterans. Would you be so angry if the war was clean? Would you hate war so much if the problems you point out didn't exist? I cannot bring back those who are gone, but once they are no longer with us at least let us use their memory to stop the next war. We need to stop war more than we need to make it cleaner.

    I have been to various sites from the Oriskany battlefield in central New York to Arlington, Gettysburg and Ground Zero. The one site that affected me the most, and the one moment in my life that has affected me the most, is those 1177 names on a pristine white wall of the Arizona Memorial. That's because all of the other places were clean, too clean. Looking over the side, seeing the gun turrets and leaking oil, knowing that those 1177 names were still beneath my feet brought home to me the cost of war more than any other place.The radddaves of the world are too few, the ones how hellish war is, up close and personal. They are not the ones in control. We need to bring home to those who do not know what raddave has experienced the wrongness of war. Manicured rows or crosses at Arlington are too clean. The rusting hulk and open gun turrets of the Arizona are much, much more effective. We make the next war too soon because we are too ready to clean up the mess of the last war.

    The spreading of radiation among the defenseless population is exactly why we need to stop future wars. I can't change this war, but I can do something to change the next war. I know that cleaning off the chessboard makes starting the next chess game easier. I CAN stop the next chess game if I leave the remains of the old game on the board. You hate war, probably so does radddave, but we need those scars that are there to remain so that others will feel like you do. We need those burned out hulks, fried bodies and destoyed cities as a reminder to the ones who do NOT hate war, those who are too often leaders in non-democratic societies, to have a reminder of the consequences of war.

    We don't need to spread radiation, we DO need to spread the hatred of war. We need to cure the disease, not take care of the symptoms but leave the underlying disease intact. We need to have the leaders who would make war feel the same anger as you do. We can do that by leaving the open, festering wounds open and festering for the leaders to see. Quarantine the dangerous areas, clean up what we can off the battlefield, but leave those scarred grounds scarred for the world to see and remember.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 12:13:44 PM

    Comment: Tor raddave: I mentioned the 'perfect weapon' even though it doesn't exist as a point that if it did exist then war would be something different, something that would give leaders less pause to start the next war. Would you want to face an enemy with the perfect weapon? Would the world be safer if Saddam Hussein had a perfect weapon? I absoluteluy agree that Bush's disarming of the military was about the biggest mistake, and the cause of the problems we are facing now. Putting half a million men with weapons out of work is a realy, really bad idea. But if we left what are the chances that the next leader would be anything but another Saddam? If there is no mess to remind those leaders of the consequences of war how long would it be before we had to go back. We cannot bring back the dead, but we CAN make sure that they did not die in vain. We do that by leaving a constant reminder of the consequences of war.

    The majority of people are peaceful, and always have been. But the ones in power are too often the agressive ones. I feel quite safe working with local Muslims. My good friend was a former Iranian soldier, now an artist. Yet a friendly neighborhood bakers was also the finance managers for the 9/11 attackers. They were seen cheering in public while the towers were burning. The middle East societies too often have leaders who are agressive, and the peaceful people do not complain.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 1:21:23 PM

      Comment: There will be many constant reminders of the consequences of war that will persist for generations--and the Iraqis did not even start this war. But we have our soldiers sick and dying as well from the DU and other injuries. Perhaps it's all only psychosomatic; the DOD says they think so.
      But for you, Holly Garfield, it really is sadistic to say that depleted uranium exposure is being left as a justifiable constant reminder of the consequences of war--unless you truly do not comprehend the ramifications. No people should be subjected to that. People like you are part of the problem you say needs reminding. You are one of the most calculatingly aggressive and disconnected people whose words I have read. It's hard to imagine you are actually serious.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 1:05:32 PM

      Comment: And might the same be said about American leaders and the local Christians and Jews? Our leaders are agressive and the peaceful people hardly complain. (I'm not sure how you know that peaceful Middle Easterners complain less than Westerners--I have heard complaints, myself) That the complaints of the peaceful people in Western societies are often interpreted or labeled as "antiamerican" etc, as we see on this blog. Peaceful complaints and letters to congress go mostly unacknowleged, perhaps a return form letter. On the other hand, I have seen Americans cheering over our victories in Iraq and elsewhere. I wonder how that is interpreted by Middle Easterners....Did you ever see Fahrenheit 911. Did you see and hear the footage of American bombers unbelievable remarks as they talk in a manner most would consider disturbing about killing Iraqis as they do it. It was offensive to me and I am sure many other citizens of our world. Perhaps it hasn't been shown on the Military Channel yet.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 1:16:41 PM

        Comment: Farenheit 911 was not a documentary, it was a propaganda piece. It contained many factual errors, lies, and distortions. Only the EXTREME left view this "film" as a documentary.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 1:37:32 PM

          Comment: And in the heat of battle, soldiers do say things that are not politically correct

        • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 1:27:35 PM

          Comment: What would you say is a factual error, lie or distortion? I am always open to the truth--even though I am a lefty. I want the truth.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 3:40:39 PM

            Comment: Well first, Moore implied that the war in Afghanistan may have been starte because Unocal wanted to build a pipeline accross Afghanistan. In 1997 Unocal did meet with officials from Afghanistan to discuss this plan, but in 1998 Unocal withdrew its support for the project after the U.S. struck Afghanistan with missles.

            In one scene outside the Saudi Embassy, Moore was approached by a uniformed secret service officer to ask what they were doing. The scene emplies that the secret service does not play a role in guarding foreign embassies, which it does.

            I remember one scene where Moore was talking to a mother of a soldier that had been killed in Iraq and she said that she was notfied by a letter. This is not true, the military sends an officer and a chaplain out to personally notify family members.

            Comments made by soldiers in the movie were taken out of context. The scene that you mentioned was another example of how Moore tried to portray the pilots as blood thirsty savages.

            When talking about the coalition of the willing, Moore only mentions the minor countries and uses images to portray these countries as innept, such as drug users from the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a very professional army.

            Things like this are the distortions that I am talking about.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 7:15:33 AM

    Comment: War NEEDS to be dirty, filthy and vile, with long term, nasty consequences. If we ever develop a clean way of waging war then war will become common becasue the consequences of war will become too low. Horishima and Nagasaki regrew. The fields of Antietam and Agincourt are still being tilled. The jungles of the Ho Chi Minh trail are recovering. Mankind needs to have constant reminders of the consequences of war, lest we forget what they are too soon. Weapons and violence are all too common in Iraq and Afghanistan, too easily accepted in their society. Perhaps those rounds of DU buried in the ground can serve notice that violence itself is the disease that they need to conquer.

    The moment that bomb detonated over Hiroshima changed the face of war forever. Major wars became unthinkable in that deadly flash of light. We need to have lasting effects from smaller wars to make those equally unthinkable to all sides. We NEED weapons to be dirty and vile for a long time after the bullets stop flying.

    Berenger's clean war and raddave's perfect weapon make war too thinkable, too easy, and too likely.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 9:50:59 AM

      Comment: War IS dirty, filty, and vile. It does have long term consequences. I never said there should be a "perfect" weapon. You said D.U. rounds were not perfect and I said that on weapon was. I have seen the burning, twisted metal of destroyed vehicles. The charred and mutilated remains of bodies. I have felt the impact of incoming mortars and rockets. I have had bullets whizzing past my head. I have fired a rifle in anger.

      I do not know about Afghanistan because I have never been there, but I do know that most iraqis do not readily accept violence in thier society. Yes, there are a some crazy lunatics that think violence is the only way. Contrary to what the Bush administration would like you to believe, the insugency was not started by Al Qaeda like terrorists or Saddam loyalists. It was started by people who did not see us as liberators, but as occupiers. Don't tell me if a foreign country occupied our great country that there would not be an insurgency here. The administration helped feed the insurgency when they disbanded the Iraqi military and fired 500,000 soldiers. The first few months after we toppled Saddam, normal Iraqis would tell us something like "Thank you for getting rid of Saddam, but do not stay here too long." In September 2003, I remember one Iraqi not saying this to me, but saying. "Why are you still here?"

      In a way you are correct, war, at least as far as we fight it, has become too effecient and too easy. Previous wars would last years and army would fight for yards a day, not miles like today. At the end of WWII, the German, and Japanese people were broken and did not have a will to continue. That made occupation of these countries alot easier.



    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 8:57:55 AM

      Comment: Easy for you to say, Holly Garfield.. You don't have to live with it or even see it all on the Military Channel. Or do you have a sick or dead gulf war vet in your life? Some people can be sensitive or empathize even if this doesn't pertain to them directly. Others just dismiss human misery as a consequence of war. Especially if it is on the side of their enemies. I wonder what you would be saying if a foreign country had polluted our country and people with radioactive materials. Would it be a necessary evil then? So we wouldn't forget.
      Your last sentence is very confusing: war is unthinkable, easy and unlikely? In your comment, you say weapons and violence are all too common in Iraq and Afganistand and too easily accepted in their society. Try watching the US news sometime! You seem very accepting of violence and war as well. You seem so fond of lasting effects of war to make them unthinkable, but they certainly are not. We think a lot about war and the Iraqs and Afganis are left with the radiation which is considered a war crime by some.
      http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4428/
      In 1996 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that DU weapons were illegal ???weapons of mass destruction.??? In 2002, the U.N. Human Rights Convention passed a resolution urging a ban on the use of any DU weapons.

      No one should have to suffer these consequences in my opinion. How can you say that innocent people should have to live with DU. And remember, the DU is not just in the ground, it is also in the air, if you care. I'm not advocating clean wars, but an end to war altoghether. Have you ever been to any of these places you speak of and of which you dismiss the horrific episodes and aftermaths as necessary reminders to mankind. There are weapons of mass destruction finally found in Iraq, and we brought them there. But you have no problem with that. It comes full circle, Bush started the war on the unsubstantiated premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, none were found--except those we used. And you say you have no trouble accepting any imperfect weapons---well I guess that is unless the other side is using them.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 9:05:43 AM

        Comment: Well, it appears I did mutilate one of your sentences, you actually said we need these crimes against humanity because war is too thinkable, easy and likely. It still doesn't make sense to me. These weapons are used and war is no less likely, but at least I have only mutilated a sentence.
        I think you need them as you only view them from your armchair on the Military Channel. And I doubt you get a few view of the misery they cause. Maybe you still would not care. Many people do not. Violence is rampant in our society, people are desensitized, and some have no conscience to begin with. Some thrive on violence and find it exciting.

        • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 9:08:45 AM

          Comment: I mutilated another sentence, I meant to say above that I doubt you get a full-view of the misery they cause from the comfort of your armchair while watching the Military Channel. I think I was hit by a big cold-fish!

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/18/2008 6:05:05 AM

    Comment: Now how do we get the other guys to stop using armor? As you stated, and raddave verified firsthand, its the only stuff we have that works on armor.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 9:59:39 AM

      Comment: It is not the only stuff that works on armor, it is the probably the most effective stuff. High explosives, such as artillery or bombs dropped from air can also take out tanks, but are not as effective.

    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 9:18:29 AM

      Comment: So is that a reasonable justification for spreading radiation among a defenseless civilian population? Hey, it also helps us dispose of some of our burden of radioactive waste. A win-win situation. Spread it over Asia and kill the enemy at the same time. Hitler would have loved that additional perk. Brilliant. I think I see that "deadly flash of light" you mention still burning in your eyes! Perhaps, one day, the DU buried in the ground, along with the victims, will remind ALL of us of the disease we still need to conquer.

  • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 1:27:04 AM

    Comment: If the articles I have read are correct, we have left a lot of radiation in Iraq and quite a bit was atomized in Afganistan and Iraq which does have the potential to travel, but is worse for those exposed nearby.
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0407irregular.htm
    DEPLETED URANIUM

    Used in anti-tank shells since the first Gulf War, depleted uranium (DU) is uranium 238, the isotope remaining after uranium 235 has been enriched for use in nuclear weapons or reactors. When DU-tipped shells are fired at high speeds from tanks or planes, the radioactive material burns through tank armor, igniting the vehicle. After exploding, 70% of the shell is vaporized into tiny particles and can be carried by the wind for many miles. Although DU is only half as radioactive as uranium 235, the tiny particles can become trapped inside the human body for long periods of time, creating serious health problems.

    During the first Gulf War, US tanks fired 14,000 DU shells, and anti-tank aircraft fired another 940,000 rounds, leaving a total of 564,000 pounds of DU either vaporized or unexploded on the desert floor. Iraqis have since experienced extremely abnormal rates of cancer, birth defects, and miscarriages in the areas where DU was used, particularly around Basra. The ???Gulf War Syndrome??? experienced by US veterans has also been widely blamed on depleted uranium.
    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4428/
    In the 1991 Gulf war, DU was delivered almost exclusively with shells from tanks and ammunition used by aircraft. It is used in all armour-piercing ordnance. In the wars in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999, NATO allies added DU missiles and bunker busting bombs. Thousands of DU bombs and missiles have been used by U.S. forces in the Afghan and Iraq wars. A typical bunker bomb contains 1.5 tonnes of depleted uranium.
    In August 2003 Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor used a Geiger counter to test several sites in Baghdad near where bunker-buster bombs and missiles had fallen. He found radiation readings that were between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation readings. DU weapons are still being extensively used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    After the 1991 Gulf War, birth defects and leukemia rose dramatically in the areas around Basra where these weapons were used. By 2003, the U.S. Defense Department admitted that over 200,000 Gulf War veterans had filed for compensation for death, illness or disabilities.
    The veterans refer to this as ???Gulf War Syndrome.??? In the first Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition suffered 148 deaths.
    Since then 8,000 veterans of this war have experienced early death.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/18/2008 1:02:12 PM

      Comment: Berenger. You should probably start looking for other sources as these contain some serious errors. First of all one of the sites say "When DU-tipped shells are fired at high speeds from tanks or planes, the radioactive material burns through tank armor, igniting the vehicle. After exploding, 70% of the shell is vaporized into tiny particles and can be carried by the wind for many miles." D.U. rounds do not burn through armor, it uses kenetic energy to penetrate armor, such as a bullet does when it hits something. D.U. rounds are not explosive, so 70% IS not vaporized. The DU round stays mostly in tact. In fact, we were concerned before the invasion that the Iraqis had been able to recover DU rounds left after the first Gulf war and would be able to use them against us. As for the "bunker buster" I do not know if it contains DU or not because it is clasified.

      There is nothing conclusive on what caused "Gulf War Syndrom" The IAEA has concluded that D.U. does not pose a radialogical hazzard. D.U. is only midly radioactive. For a person to absorb enough radiation (about 75 Cgy) to show effects of radiation exposure a person would have to sit within one meter of a D.U. round 24 hours a day for about 10 years.

      D.U. was used in Bosnia and in Kosovo and there have not been any reports of any Gulf War type illnesses, so that might rule out D.U. as a source of Gulf War Syndrom.
      The U.N. General Assembly did not adopt a resolution declaring D.U. weapons as illeagal. The General assembly doesn't have the authority to do that, if anyone in the U.N. had that authority, it would be the security, but I am not sure they have that authority either, weapons are usually made illeagal by treaties.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 4:00:34 PM

        Comment: This may or may not be useful here, the math on US soldiers and disability and death, etc.

        http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_Aug2007.pdf

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 3:28:34 PM

        Comment: sorry for the duplication, but i had originally put this in the wrong place, and would like to keep these comments together in case anyone is interested. it's a wonder we do not hear more about this. Lots more specific info at the links:

        Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 08:04:37
        Comment: I am still looking for more DU info. Thought you may be interested in this:

        http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/du_keeps_killing.htm

        How to explain a Washington Post report in January of 2006 that 518,00 of the 580,000 Gulf War veterans were on disability, over half on permanent disability. How to explain over 13,000 dead Gulf War veterans when only 250 were killed and 7,000 injured in the war itself?
        Finally, through the work of internationally recognized research scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, we may have an answer to these questions. The answer has to do with using an analytical methodology appropriate to low level radiation, as opposed to inappropriate methodologies used to date that show DU is harmless, and, equally important, understanding that DU has both a radiological component as well as a heavy metal component, and the two in combination are far more toxic than either is singly.

        We must also consider the real possibility of Iraq as an uninhabitable wasteland, with the residue of the DU aerosol blowing in the wind and flowing in the waters to adjacent lands, a residue with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Is this outlook too bleak?

        After Gulf War I, the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority estimated that DU contamination could kill half a million Iraqis.

        Much of the scientific evaluation of uranium oxide has come from analysis of uranium mining and milling, but this ignores a major fact-that battlefield uranium oxide is very different from uranium oxide produced at normal temperatures. When a DU shell hits a hardened target, it bursts into flame and creates an invisible metal fume, often called an aerosol. (Tests carried out eight to ten years after Gulf War I found that the DU aerosol from the battlefield had been carried to Basra and Baghdad, though no fighting occurred in those areas.)

        I suspect the military-industrial complex will stonewall admitting the effects of DU for as long as possible to avoid accepting responsibility, not to mention liability, for their reckless actions. When John Hanchette, a founding editor of USA Today tried to publish stories about DU, he received a phone call from the Pentagon asking him to desist. He was later replaced at USA Today. The World Health Organization's chief expert on radiation and health had his report on DU suppressed. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then a colonel in the U.S. Army, was asked to lie about the risks of DU to humans. So the stonewalling will continue, even as cancers rage among our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, even as our soldiers die, or commit suicide to escape the horrific pain, even as birth defects proliferate across Iraq and among our veterans.

        • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 4:44:15 PM

          Comment: While I am working to corroberate these numbers, the comma is in the wrong place on the number of veterans on disability in this article. I am pointing that out for clarity as it may look misleading.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 8:38:44 AM

        Comment: And you have to consider what U238 decays into as that is also inside the body and on the ground:

        http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_update_1_3.htm
        U238 is an alpha emitter with rare spontaneous fission. It decays into 234 Thorium (Th), which has a half life of 24.1 days, and is a beta and gamma emitter. Th234 decays into 234m Protactinium (Pa), an isomer of Pa234, which has a half life of 1.17 minutes, and is beta emitter. 234m Protactinium decays into Pa234 (which has a half life of 6.7 hours) and is an alpha emitter. Effectively, in four to six months after it is discarded from the enrichment facility, because of these continuous radioactive transformations, freshly produced DU, composed mostly of U238, becomes a mixture of U238, Th234, Pa234m, Pa234 and U234 in equilibrium proportions. The first two decay products, Th and Pa along with U238 account for most of the alpha, beta and small amount of gamma radioactivity of the mixture.
        Specific Activity: The effectiveness of uranium for cell mutation and cell killing depends on whether the uranium is inside or outside of the body. In both natural and depleted uranium, the isotope U238 predominates: 99.2745% in natural uranium, and 99.7947% in depleted uranium. Given the same amount of concentrated uranium, the specific activity of the depleted form is approximately 60% of the specific activity natural form. This means that DU has about 60% as many nuclear transformations, each emitting an alpha particle, than does natural uranium.

        Along with the alpha and beta particles released by uranium and its progeny in nuclear transformations, there is also a gamma release of 1.775 MeV. [Ref. 9].

        In one day, one microgram of DU would release 1,071,000 alpha particles, each with more than four million electron volts of energy; into whatever organ or tissue it was lodged. These alpha particle emissions impact a sphere with radius of about 7 cells. To assume that no harm is done to tissues and cells is ridiculous! To limit concern, as ICRP does, to damage resulting in a fatal cancer ten or twenty years from now is equally ridiculous.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 8:34:08 AM

        Comment: http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_update_1_3.htm

        When exposed to friction in air, or when it hits a hardened target it creates a very hot metal fume, 3000 to 6000 degrees Centigrade, which burns away the point of the weapon, keeping it sharp. This allows the missile or rocket to penetrate deeply into the object it hits.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 8:31:31 AM

        Comment: Similar figures given for aerosol rate, except for in bombs, 100%:

        http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm

        Extensive carpet bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolized upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as 1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount aerosolized is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 8:24:35 AM

        Comment: Enter Your Comment http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_update_2_3.htm

        The effectiveness of uranium weapons is due not only to the high density of uranium, which is more dense than lead, but also to its ability to form inter-metallic compounds with iron. This combination melts through armor plating, and is air oxidized into very fine iron and uranium particles.

        At the high temperature of a friction fire, most of the DU particles created are converted to a ceramic like form:

        «DU projectiles hit very different targets, but especially buildings and armaments, like, for example, tanks, and when they do, the temperature in the core of the explosion exceeds 3,000 degrees Centigrade, which is more than enough to have all solid matter sublime, and, in some case, form new metal alloys. The gas expends over a large volume of atmosphere, then, rapidly, the matter becomes solid again, taking the shape of small spheres, stays suspended in the air and is carried away over distances depending on atmospheric conditions like wind, rain, snow and air pressure. This phenomenon was studied in 1977-78 at the U.S. Air Force Base of Leglin, Florida, U.S.A..

        «After some time, all air-borne particles fall slowly down and settle on grass and vegetables, fruit or expanses of water where they become inevitably a guest of food and drink to animals and [people] alike. Even if the unwanted presence is known in advance - but very often it is utterly ignored - getting rid completely of inorganic particles can be very difficult».[Ref 2.].

        Particles of one nanometer in diameter, can float in air indefinitely due to Brownian action or thermal motion of its molecules. How far it travels will depend on wind, air currents, and obstacles in its path. [Ref 3.].

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 8:20:42 AM

        Comment: It appears that what is meant by burns through the vehicle is probably best explained by this military document: http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/documents/fact/65-050-0503.pdf
        When a vehicle is impacted and perforated by a DU projectile, the projectile splits into small shards,
        many of the small shards burst into flames, and fill the insides of the vehicle with flying metal, fumes, and
        particulates. The bulk of a DU projectile may pass directly through the vehicle. The inside of the damaged
        vehicle remains contaminated with particles of DU and its oxides after the impact. In the event of a
        vehicular fire, the heat of the fire can cause any onboard DU ammunition to oxidize.

        Not sure what the percentage is,that's hard to find,but some evidentally burst in to flames and there is the metal fumes, as well.


      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 3:37:00 PM

        Comment: Raddav, I will do more research about the DU shells being vaporized and try to get sources. I bet some percentage, if not 70, is vaporized. I believe the bunker busters do contain DU, but have no proof. Their would have to be a lot of vaporization from that. And as you said, the military isn???t advertising. I???m sure the truth will come out one way or another some day. It usually does. By then, those unaffected will no longer care.

        Now you talk about sitting by a tank, but what about the high levels of background radiation detected by Scott Peterson, has the military come across anything like that? Also Iraqis living amid the rounds everyday, more than one round, certainly will face a risk over their life times. Would you want to live there? I do not believe it is not harmful for a minute from my background. I am not sure the Gulf War Syndrome is caused by DU, but I think there is a possibility DU is at least a contributing factor. They said Agent Orange was harmless, too. Now we all know that isn???t so. How can you believe it is harmless with your background. And for the people who have inhaled or ingested even small amounts, it is a constant source of radiation in their bodies. It will definitely harm them, soldiers and civilians alike.
        r Your Comment

  • Posted By: raddave @ 07/17/2008 11:04:13 PM

    Comment: This might be an interesting article found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/16/usa.iran


    The US is planning to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a remarkable turnaround in policy by president George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office.

    The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

    The news comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games aimed at Iran and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.

    The White House announced today that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

    Burns is to sit down at the table with Iranian officials in spite of Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment progamme, a possible first step on the way to building a nuclear weapon capability.

    A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal direct with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany.

    Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to.




    • Posted By: berenger @ 07/17/2008 11:34:04 PM

      Comment: I just saw this on the news and was thrilled. I think this is a great move!

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/17/2008 11:05:37 PM

      Comment: The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he is not against the opening of a US mission, saying Iran will consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries.

      US interests in the country at present are looked after by the Swiss embassy. The British government restored its embassy in Tehran after Labour's 1997 general election victory as part of a policy of constructive diplomacy with countries that had previously been branded rogue states.

      Creation of a US interest section would see diplomats stationed in Tehran for the first time since the hostage crisis that began when hundreds of students, as part of the Iranian revolution that led to fall of the Shah, stormed the US embassy in 1979 and held the occupants until 1981.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 07/17/2008 11:06:12 PM

        Comment: The special interests section would be similar to the one in Havana, Cuba. The US broke off relations with Cuba in 1961 after Castro's take-over but US diplomats returned in 1977.

        The special interests section carries out all the functions of an embassy. It is in terms of protocol part of the Swiss embassy but otherwise is staffed by Americans and independent of the Swiss.

        There has been an intense debate within the Bush administration over Iran, with the vice-president, Dick Cheney, in favour of a military strike against Iranian nuclear plants and the state department in favour of diplomacy.

        The state department has been pressing the White House for the last two years to re-establish diplomatic relations with Tehran by setting up an interest section.

        The state department is keen that the move should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

        Sending Burns, who left Washington last night, to Geneva and the establishment of an interests section undercuts one of the main planks of foreign policy advocated by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, who argues for direct negotiations with Iran. The White House has been working in tandem over the last month with Obama's Republican rival, John McCain.

        The US has had to rely on British diplomats based in Tehran, as well as other diplomats in the capital, for information about the inner workings of Iranian politics.

        Having its own interests section would give its diplomats access to students, dissidents and others. It would also process visa applications, at present handled by a small office in Dubai, which is difficult for Iranians to get to.

        Ahmadinejad told a reporter earlier this week, in response to a question about a US interests section: "We will receive favourably any action which will help to reinforce relations between the peoples."

        He added: "We have not received any official request but we think that the development of relations between the two peoples is something correct."

        That sentiment was echoed last month by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice who told reporters: "We want more Iranians visiting the United States ... We are determined to reach out to the Iranian people."

        Iran has an interests section in Washington, which would make it harder for Tehran to deny the Americans a similar arrangement.

        Rice set up a group to study the feasibility of re-establishing a presence after the idea cropped up repeatedly in discussions among Washington think tanks.

        Asked last month about the idea, she would not confirm or deny it was under consideration. But she said indicated that the present arrangement where there is an American visa office for Iranians in Dubai was inadequate.

        "We know that it's difficult for Iranians sometimes to get to Dubai.'"

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/17/2008 11:08:56 PM

          Comment: With this and Bush sending the number three person at the State Department to the nuclear negotiations with Iran, maybe Bush is ready to try some appeasement, I mean negotiation to try and resolve the conflict.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/17/2008 9:48:59 PM

    Comment: To berenger: one of the pages I checked had a list of Iranian nuclear facilities. It was more than a couple. There is enough flexibility to play musical chairs for any weapons grade uranium. Given Iran's closed society it would be virtually impossible to isolate which facility would be involved with a weapons program. Iran's mullahs may not be nice, but they aren't stupid. Striking the wrong facility would be a disaster for the bombers and Iran would come out smelling like a rose. That pretty much puts any aerial strike out of the question. That is why a bombing strike may be considered, but not executed. I'll still consider hitting you with a dead fish, but it'll be as likely as a bombing strike on Iran's reactors.

    By the way, if I wanted to shut down a buried reactor safely all I would is is drop some small bombs over the office area, not enough to cause any damage. Reactors need people to operate, and the bombs would be a hint to the engeneers and scientists that it might be a good time for a career change. Our F117s can strike at any time, and we are developing bombs intended to hit a single house now, enough to knock three times on the ceiling of a buried facility without any physical damage.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/17/2008 8:18:51 PM

    Comment: Thanks for your information again, raddave. I found much of berenger's initial comments suspect. I see in a quick check of the centrifuge stories references to HEU in inspected centrifuges and claims of 3,000 operational P2 centrifuges last November by Mr. President (not ours) himself. Also stories that Iran is now building its own centrifuges, and indications by purity that Russian centrifuges are in use. Another report showed an oversized production floor for the centrifuges. Lots of indications that Iran is doing more than civilian production, even without proof.

    The latest Military Channel promo is for a show on an ABM shootdown of an orbiting satellite. If we can hit orbit then we can hit anything that Iran can toss up. That leaves the mystery of even if Iran gets a bomb how does it get delivered where it can do any real damage. There isn't anything Iran can do with any expected number of bombs that doesn't result in a global call for an Iranian regime change. They will have a toy and no way to play with it. I guess they have to do something with their oil money except feed their people.

    I had no idea that DU was used in M1A1 armor. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Should I be happy that you don't think I'm a neocon, whatever that is?

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/17/2008 6:43:12 PM

    Comment: Here are some links I found to Iranian centrifuges under a Google search for centrifuge Iran:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-11/2007-11-07-voa71.cfm?CFID=14569130&CFTOKEN=92255662

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/01/nuclear.iran/index.html

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200604250003

    http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1073/iranian-centrifuge-developments

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954030.html

    There are many others. I didn't include the ones from Israel.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/17/2008 6:19:58 PM

    Comment: To raddave: I think the number was over 600, but that was several months ago. I remember that the number was alarming to those who are supposed to know.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/17/2008 6:17:03 PM

    Comment: To raddave: what weapon is perfect? I have no trouble accepting any imperfections and am glad that you and your fellow soldiers have the best we have, perfect or not. I am irritated with the people who want perfection in a weapon system and want to take what we have off the battlefield because it isn't perfect. I think the ones who should have the most valid input as far as DU are the footsoldiers outside your armor who count on your DU rounds to protect them. Thank you for serving our country, and thank you for the verification that DU is being used because there is no better alternative. And keep those soldiers who have only a Kevlar helmet between their head and a bullet safe.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/17/2008 7:08:02 PM

      Comment: No weapon is perfect. And as a soldier that has invaded Iraq twice, I can attest to the effectiveness of D.U. rounds. I have been around quite a few buring Iraqi tanks and I have not been contaminated.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/17/2008 6:02:06 PM

    Comment: Evolution comes from natural radiation. I got that from high school biology. I have no idea what my textbook was.

    I have no desire for war, and I have too little, and too gray, hair for military service. I do accept that once war is started that any squeamishness needs to be set aside. I lost a cousin I never knew due to berenger's Japanese thinking about surrender and not waving the white flag. Once the bullets start flying the key to getting home alive as soon as possible is to be as overwhelmingly agressive as possible. When it comes to radiation from U238 we still get back to the question of 'is it the best weapon we had at the time to get the job done at the time.' I haven't seen any information that says anything better than DU was available at the time for the job that needed to be done at the time. I have seen nothing from either raddave or berenger that says there was an alternative available at that time and wasn't used. The Warthog is still flying with new avionics, and still firing its Vulcan cannon as its main weapon for that precise reason. I accept that the fog of war creates friendly fire incidents. I accept that war is not the place to practice tree hugging, except for cover. So far I haven't seen any information that says we would have fewer casualites if we had not used DU rounds. I believe from what I have heard that without the armor penetration of DU we would have had more enemy fire casualties, enough more to make DU the ammunition of choice. I want the minimum casualties on our side. Like the bullets themselves, I don't really care which side the bullet comes from. I just want my friends home and safe, the more of them the better.

    I'm not sure I'm a neocon, I'm too old to know what a neocon is. I wonder if a 'neocon' would consider me the opposite of whatever a 'neocon' is. Probably. I don't think I've been a neo anything for many, many years.

    I do get your point, I just don't consider it as important as you do. I consider the safety of our troops in harm's way as the most important point, and DU with its armor penetrating abilities, is the best ammunition for use against the weapons the enemy was using. I haven't seen any statement to the contrary. If we didn't have DU ammunition then either the soldiers would be hit by non-DU bullets and still be injured, or the non-DU bullets wouldn't have penetrated the soldier's armored vehicle. If the bullets can't penetrate our own armor then it can't penetrate the enemy armor either, and would be useless.

    The information on the spread of fallout indicates that it was probably so dilute as to be no real danger. Triple the normal dose of alpha particles (neutrons), the weakest and most common of the three main types of radiation, from only one alpha particle source, doesn't sound like any real hazard. Stating 300% sure makes it sound more ominous than my version, though

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/17/2008 6:57:46 PM

      Comment: Like I said, I have no problem with D.U. rounds. I consider it important because I taught the hazzards of D.U. for two years to soldiers. Since the Army feels it is important to educate soldiers on the hazzards of D.U. I feel it is important.

      I didn't call you a neocon. I called likeites one.

      The information that berenger published sounds suspect to me. First D.U. rounds do not explode, secondly an explosion from a vehicle hit with D.U. is not powerful enough to send D.U. high enough into the atmosphere to spread it as far as England. D.U is so heavy that all research conducted by the military show that it will fall near (usually within 50 meters) of the burning vehicle. I actually monitored an M1A1 that exploded with D.U. rounds loaded in it and the shielding that it has. I was about 1km downwind from it and never recorded an increase in radiation.

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/20/2008 8:04:37 AM

        Comment: I am still looking for more DU info. Thought you may be interested in this:

        http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/du_keeps_killing.htm

        How to explain a Washington Post report in January of 2006 that 518,00 of the 580,000 Gulf War veterans were on disability, over half on permanent disability. How to explain over 13,000 dead Gulf War veterans when only 250 were killed and 7,000 injured in the war itself?
        Finally, through the work of internationally recognized research scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, we may have an answer to these questions. The answer has to do with using an analytical methodology appropriate to low level radiation, as opposed to inappropriate methodologies used to date that show DU is harmless, and, equally important, understanding that DU has both a radiological component as well as a heavy metal component, and the two in combination are far more toxic than either is singly.

        We must also consider the real possibility of Iraq as an uninhabitable wasteland, with the residue of the DU aerosol blowing in the wind and flowing in the waters to adjacent lands, a residue with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Is this outlook too bleak?

        After Gulf War I, the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority estimated that DU contamination could kill half a million Iraqis.

        Much of the scientific evaluation of uranium oxide has come from analysis of uranium mining and milling, but this ignores a major fact-that battlefield uranium oxide is very different from uranium oxide produced at normal temperatures. When a DU shell hits a hardened target, it bursts into flame and creates an invisible metal fume, often called an aerosol. (Tests carried out eight to ten years after Gulf War I found that the DU aerosol from the battlefield had been carried to Basra and Baghdad, though no fighting occurred in those areas.)

        I suspect the military-industrial complex will stonewall admitting the effects of DU for as long as possible to avoid accepting responsibility, not to mention liability, for their reckless actions. When John Hanchette, a founding editor of USA Today tried to publish stories about DU, he received a phone call from the Pentagon asking him to desist. He was later replaced at USA Today. The World Health Organization's chief expert on radiation and health had his report on DU suppressed. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then a colonel in the U.S. Army, was asked to lie about the risks of DU to humans. So the stonewalling will continue, even as cancers rage among our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, even as our soldiers die, or commit suicide to escape the horrific pain, even as birth defects proliferate across Iraq and among our veterans.


      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/18/2008 12:50:37 AM

        Comment: raddave, were DU bunker buster bombs used in the current Iraq war?

      • Posted By: berenger @ 07/17/2008 9:07:09 PM

        Comment: Enter Your CommentEvolution is caused by many envirnomentally limiting factors besides radiation. Countless numbers. Your argument is like calling