US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

Johnny J · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:44 am Post subject:

What is more disturbing than the article itself are the comments people made after reading the article.

Several people want to replace the generals with officers who will gladly attack Iran. Typically, all of the people eager for an attack on Iran were American.

This attitude is no different than those Germans, who during World War II, "supported" the "brave" Wehrmacht soldiers "defending" Western Civilization.

Best Regards,

!!johNnY J!!

Nachtschattenreich · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:48 am Post subject:

The Nazi generals waited with their coup against Hitler until it was clear that the Americans couldn´t be thrown back into the English Channel. Then the Stauffenberg Conspiracy contacted Allen Dulles in Geneva but failed to win his support for their idea of regime change without democratisation. Since Hitler ordered them all to be hanged they´re the greatest mascots^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hheros of the Bundeswehr.

I can only guess which contacts these Pentagon generals have to the Guardian Council of Persia, but if they rely on the Davos Kerry-Khatami link they truly are desperados even more than Stauffenberg. Do they believe Khatami would support a coup, and if so with which actions? Do they expect as soon as Hizb´Allah deploys a radiological weapon into an European capital their time had come, and if so would such a change imply any political progress? Or is this something completely different, like the Israeli "refusenik" folks who see their protest more as honorary discharge than as the pumpup to a coup?

What I find interesting is how Persia justifies its breach of the Paris Agreement:

**Ferre** · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:52 am Post subject:

Nachtschattenreich, you seem to share the idea, with the American and Israeli governments, that Iran is planning to develop and use nuclear weapons.

I do not share that idea. It is based on nothing but fear mongering rumours by governments with an agenda of invading Iran.

Just the other day the Iranian president has declared that those weapons violate Islam law and that they do not plan to make, or use them.

Given the fact that the sources that tell us to believe that Iran is developing nuclear bombs are cought red handed lying to us time and time again in order to get support for their illegal wars, I tend to take those treaths with a huge grain of salt and I tend to believe Iran when they say they do not intent to make nuclear bombs.

Besides, I feel a lot less comfortable with Israel's ILLEGAL nuclear arsenal. What about that?
_________________
█ Please read the Board Rules and Posting, and you
█ Radio Free Amsterdam
People who know truth, speak truth.
Those who don't, quote scriptures.

Nachtschattenreich · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject:

I´ve seen too many governments waver to expect them to stick to their declared intentions. Government intentions can change erratically, my own government impeached itself* from one day to another.

To recognize this fact is to learn to deal with it. Reliability is a matter of the power architecture not of the government. As long as a government is not willing to abandon its own right to kick out international inspectors (precisely that is what the entire ratification blurb is about!) it may outlaw nuclear weapons as hard as as it can I´m not gonna believe anything of it.

Now of course you will see a dispute over who has to start playing by the rules first. You name Israel and America. I say governments that proliferate weapons of mass destructions into the black market, or that parade carrier systems with slogans naming other nations through their capitals have to suspend their rejectionism first.

The international energy agency plan for Israel (which my country does not see as illegal, otherwise it would not provide it with submarine retaliation capabilities for the time being) is a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in West Asia. I do not think it could be helpful to try to implement this backwards, in the right order Pakistan and Persia must disarm first. In fact, for a wmd-free zone in Europe (including the shelf islands) to be possible, it is necessary that one becomes reality in West Asia first.

[200702281638 - country name spelling fixed]

Johnny J · Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:55 am Post subject:

In order for any treaty to have the respect of the international community, it must be applied fairly and impartially. Different rules should not apply to different nations. Each nation should be accorded the same respect diplomatically. There must be an acknowledgment by all nations that just because a culture is different, or one that is based on different principles, or one that we are philosophically at odds with, that this is not enough to warrant a change of government.

Applying one set of standards to friendly nations, or allied nations, or puppet governments, and different standards to countries that you don't like, or are not in league with you, is the fastest and surest way to undermine the respect the international community has for a treaty. As well as the effectiveness of the treaty.

As it stands, the NPT at its basis separates countries into those that may have nuclear arms and those that may not. Yet this class structure is not enough. Some countries are not required to be part of NPT (Israel, India and Pakistan), while others must sign an additional protocol (Iran).

What standard will be applied the moment Pakistan gets an anti-American government?

This entire episode has nothing to do with the impartial application of treaty provisions, but is rather a way for the powerful nations to impose their will on a weaker country. In other words, Colonialism and Imperialism.

Best Regards,

!!johnny J!!

**aeroplane** · Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:20 am Post subject:

Claps to Johnny J & Ferre.

Nachtschattenreich · Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject:

Johnny, cultural independency is precisely why I am agnostic regarding the Bush administration. Who am I Euro to tell you Amis whom you vote into your White House? My criticism of your culture targets situations as the huge prison population or the ´intelligence´ hydrocephalus, but it´s none of my business whether baseball man or ketchup man gets the job.

That the nonproliferation treaty has an additional protocol is due to the fact that once an international treaty is signed you can´t make any further changes, you could only make a new treaty for a new signature. (This is precisely the problem with the European Constitution, BTW.) Technology changed in the last couple of decades, so the agency has developed the additional protocol to implement the updates mandatory to all treaty signatories. The IAEA has a list which country made which step at which time, as well as the full wording of the protocol: IAEA Safeguards and Verification

You may argue that the NPT itself was illegitimate since some nations never entered. But a treaty due to its very nature cannot commit anyone else than the signatories. What has the bigger chance of success, a plan to get the outsiders into the existing agreement, or a redraw from scratch?

When the Charter of the United Nations was signed by the founding members, weapons of mass destruction weren´t a decisive issue yet, the Trinity Test and the multilateral ultimatum against Japan* were still some weeks away. The IAEA was established more than a decade later than the UN (1957), and the Hot Line followed another couple of years later (1963). That was it all for the first half of the cold war. Only in the second half a consensus could be reached, that the establishment of a treaty freezing the number of legitimate nuclear arsenals (i.e. UNSC veto capabilities) to its current value in exchange for access to civilian nuclear technology for the rest of us was better than just wait and see. In 1968 the NPT was the closest thing possible to redrawing the system from scratch.

I do not make any double standard between NATO members and others at this point.

As for Pakistan, I think it should turn over AQ Khan to the International Court of Justice at the Hague, even if only doing so to finally bring the U.S.A. towards a decision whether to accept its jurisdiction. Our prisons are full of Cannabis martyrs but if you bring weapons of mass destruction onto the black market you are pardoned. Maybe the European nuclear industry does not want Khan to talk about his early career in their facilities.

Nachtschattenreich · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject:

aeroplane -

prntrkmt · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject:

Nachtschattenreich · Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject:

This has been tried, and it turned out that it would only work if Libya was included:

Johnny J · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:09 am Post subject:

I am against adding seats to the Security Council.

The commonest complaint with world bodies such as the United Nations, and its predeccessor, the League of Nations, or legislative bodies in general, is that they are institutions where a lot of talking takes place, but nothing gets accomplished.

This is the complaint of Cheney, his sidekick the ignoramus Bush, their cronies and their Bible beater constituency. However, their concept of diplomacy is a strict adherence to following America's every whim and wish.

The Security Council was designed to reach a broad consensus to collective military action. However, with even as few as 5 members, the Security Council is coalescing into two blocs -- the U.S., England and France on one side, and China and Russia on the other. A good example is action against Iran, and I believe that in this case deadlock is a good thing.

To add additional members would increase the possibility of paralysis.

That said, I believe that if additional seats were given, Germany, Japan and India would be the most deserving. Nachtschattenreich's idea of fusing two European seats (three if you add Germany) to represent the E.U. is appealing, but one wonders whether the intransigent English would ever accept this.

Best Regards,

!!jOhNNy J!!

Don Quixote · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:59 am Post subject:

oooh gooody!

a chance for me to sell crazy down your street.

ok ,

1) NO member of the U.N. should have the power of veto.ALL members of the U.N. should have equal share in the decision making process and equal respect in the eyes of 'the law.'

2) ALL nations on earth , including the brits and the U.S.A. should be permanently banned from developing ANY form of nuclear power or weapons.Do the words Chernoble or long Island ring any bells.?

or how about the dust from all the nuclear waste (depleted uranium weapons) which we have dumped in Iraq.this dust is now circling the world and settling in YOUR lungs wherever you live.

still , its a nice cheap way to get rid of all that nukiller poison.far cheaper than proper disposal.just dump it on some 'foreign johnies'.nice trick lads.

3) B.liar , (an MI.6 stooge who is pretending to be our legitimate leader.) recently announced that he intends to replace our 'nukiller detergent' ("bleaches your coloureds whiter than white")with a bigger , more lethal , type of nukiller weapon.i will be paying for that in my tax bill soon , no doubt.

lets forget about the 99% of brits who dont want this shit, because protesting is now an 'act of terrorism' in good old democratic engerlandt , so there wont be any opposition to that plan.

4) what RIGHT do we have to tell the sovereign nation of Iran what they can or cannot do? are they less human than us? are we the Ubermensch and they the Untermensch? are we racialy superior to them?

or is it because we have lots of big , shiny , nukilla bombs and can reduce them all to radio-active dust.?seriously , what power , God , church , council or whatever - the - f*** gave us absolute power over all of humanity?did i miss something?

5) The biggest threat to the survival of our species is NOT Iran - ITS BRITAIN AND AMERICA!(ie. the handfull of freemasons that OWN us.)

6) If Iran does not develop nuclear weapons they are f**ked.

we (the Rothschilds , rockafella , etc.. etc..)will slaughter their children , reduce them to the dark ages and steal anything of value that they have.

you know? just like 'we' are doing in Iraq , Afghanistan , Chechenya , Columbia , Mexico , etc ... etc ... ad infinitum.

7) WE need to start Boycotting these evil bastards and the corporations and banks they own.put down our silly little flags , patriotisms , nazisms , racialisms , our silly national anthems and all the other 'isms and schizms and realise that we ALL share a rather small , beautiful planet together and there is nowhere else for us to run to.

WHEN are we , humanity , going to WAKE UP.

ok , crazy hat , over and out.

PEACE - FOR CRYING OUT LOAD.

.

**Brother Adam** · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject:

**aeroplane** · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject:

I think Mexico should be given America's veto powers.

Why? Think of it this way: lively colors, piñadas, mariachi bands, fiestas, ciestas, and most importantly NO NUKES!

After a few burritos, tacos, and enchiladas downed with several serbasos, all sides would come to an agreement. Cool

And lets not forget their world famous 'shrooms and cacti!
_________________
"Penalties against the possession of a drug
should not be more damaging to the individual
than the drug itself."

US President Jimmy Carter