IAEA: Attack on Iran sheer madness

[Barrett808]

Source: Press TV

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei has said that an attack on Iran will be an 'act of madness'.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cautioned on Thursday that an attack on Iran over its nuclear program would be "an act of madness," in indirect warnings to the United States and Israel.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei also said Iran would likely be running close to 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges by the end of next month.

ElBaradei spoke at the end of a meeting of his agency's 35-nation board, a gathering that focused on Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

Under Washington's pressure, the UN Security Council has imposed two rounds of sanctions on Iran to force it to suspend uranium enrichment.

Read more: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=13135§ionid=351020104

[Sapere aude]

1. Well, Bush and Cheney and the neocons are mad so this act of madness is a good fit.

I doubt that this warning has any impact on the neocons.

[Kikosexy2]

4. I guess...

IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD....

[Solly Mack]

2. So was Iraq but we see how they went

[seemslikeadream]

3. sheer madness

Iraq


What difference does it make to them?


all the build up to the evil Saddam

all the build up the the evil Iran

Even on the night of March 19 I believed someone would stop them. I don't have that much faith any more.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/03/MN306918.DTL

On Wednesday, CNN didn't deny that it knew anything about the war's start date, but a network official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said picking the 19th was merely a good guess. The official said CNN's reporters have a lot of good government contacts and various dates had been tossed around.

Other networks were also making guesses -- a source at CBS said the news department was convinced it was March 20 -- but those musings began roughly two weeks after CNN's "guess" and just before the war started. If your memory can rush back through the fog of war, you'll recall that on March 4, it was diplomacy -- or faltering diplomacy -- that dominated the headlines. It wasn't until more than a week later, when the British suddenly proposed March 17 as a drop-dead date for U.N. Security Council bickering and Iraqi compliance, that a start date was even imaginable.

After that, President Bush announced his now famous 48-hour deadline and, when the 48 hours ran out -- on Wednesday, March 19 -- war started.



War and Globalization
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q=Hijacking+Catastrophe&total=29&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7


Hijacking Catastrophe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZaWh0cJPQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8S_vOZqJbE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GT7ti8LZ6A&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOtqGNJ8qI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C02QHS0D44&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kBX00TR-aA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghh00bn_DA&mode=related&search=


“Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.”


She's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her - to carry out her divine mission



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1454229

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Nemesis was the ancient Greek goddess of revenge, the punisher of hubris and arrogance in human beings. You may recall she is the one that led Narcissus to the pond and showed him his reflection, and he dove in and drowned. I chose the title, because it seems to me that she's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her -- to carry out her divine mission.

By the subtitle, I really do mean it. This is not just hype to sell books -- “The Last Days of the American Republic.” I’m here concerned with a very real, concrete problem in political analysis, namely that the political system of the United States today, history tells us, is one of the most unstable combinations there is -- that is, domestic democracy and foreign empire -- that the choices are stark. A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.

I’ve spent some time in the book talking about an alternative, namely that of the British Empire after World War II, in which it made the decision, not perfectly executed by any manner of means, but nonetheless made the decision to give up its empire in order to keep its democracy. It became apparent to the British quite late in the game that they could keep the jewel in their crown, India, only at the expense of administrative massacres, of which they had carried them out often in India. In the wake of the war against Nazism, which had just ended, it became, I think, obvious to the British that in order to retain their empire, they would have to become a tyranny, and they, therefore, I believe, properly chose, admirably chose to give up their empire.

As I say, they didn't do it perfectly. There were tremendous atavistic fallbacks in the 1950s in the Anglo, French, Israeli attack on Egypt; in the repression of the Kikuyu -- savage repression, really -- in Kenya; and then, of course, the most obvious and weird atavism of them all, Tony Blair and his enthusiasm for renewed British imperialism in Iraq. But nonetheless, it seems to me that the history of Britain is clear that it gave up its empire in order to remain a democracy. I believe this is something we should be discussing very hard in the United States.

......

[sakabatou]

5. *: I'm not listen-ing!

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Well, that settles it then; we HAVE to do it.

We make up our own realities, and if that's not a glib description of barking madness, I don't know what is. Smirky and Sneer HAVE to "show 'em", just like Michael Ledeen said.

The fact that they have three times the population of Iraq and much more defensible terrain doesn't mean anything when you're creating your own reality. Okay, so maybe we'll just bomb the snot out of them and not risk a ground war. Do we really think the Straits of Hormuz won't be interdicted? Our very presence in Iraq depends on that lane being open. Do we really think that the disruption of oil won't seriously mess up our fragile economy? Do we really think that they won't find ways to strike back? Do we really even think?

Vulnerable as a huge array of centrifuges is, there are all sorts of ways to get fissile material, and nothing focuses a nation like an enemy hell-bent on destruction. Remember: frustrated as many were with the war in '44 and '45, many Germans banded together behind their leader because he told them that the barbarians were out to annihilate them, and with the Allies' call for unconditional surrender and the fierce bombing, it certainly seemed to be the case.

Look how many Bush-haters stood by him after 9-11. It's human nature.

These guys are nuts, plain and simple, so as their time in power runs out, they may make a stab at all sorts of things.

How many people thought that they'd never dare to do something so ugly and insane as attacking Iraq? Many of us were there to say they would, but think of how many "sensible" people poo-pooed the very idea.

These guys are beyond scary.

[saigon68]

7. A Nation Led by a gangster Chimpanzee