What gives?

Some few words on Chernobyl i'd like to write.
I think that people (i'm not referring to someone here but i'm talking about all the people i've heard debating about the matter) just ignore some facts.
Chernobyl disaster did not happen for the insufficient means of russian technology but for the arrogance of only few people who decided to make an "experiment" without consulting anyone else than themselves.
No casualty here.
If they would ask to those who provided the equipments and all the other scientist in russian nuke's projects they would surely have had this answer: NO.
Chernobyl system did not exploded but first melted and then burned for 10 days!
This is very important because can make people understand why all that dust covered the entire globe's surface.
The covering attempts about Chernobyl has been complete involving first the russian governemet (firts of all Mr. Gorbaciov who never read the reports about the disaster and all the alarms about people health given by russian scientist) to reach the ONU buros.
Somebody for years did minimize the event and still says that the victims of Chernobyl disaster are: 31 death casualties during the fire, 200 persons hit by acute radiation effects and 2000 documented thyroid's cancer casualties.
A plane crash would have killed much more.

In 1994 the american governement involve the russian governement in a test plan to study the effects of Chernobyl disaster on 13.000 persons.
National Cancer Institute and the respective authority in Minsk, Byelorussia, start workin' after the allocation from the american governement of 10.000.000 dollars.
In the agreement there's not a word about recovery of the 13.000 tested persons.
The scientist and the doctors involved in the project must only examine and report.
Only examine and report.
This kind of "research" on human beings is not allowed in USA as in Europe, but nobody care.
Just to pinpoint Mr. Fred Mettler, AIEA scientific delegation chief in Byelorussia, officially declared in 1991 that there were no correlations between the radiations levels in the region's residents' systems and the Chernobyl disaster.
The american governement needs datas.
Datas to demonstrate that there's no correlations between radiations' pollution and cancer's level increasement.
Why?
Because the american governement, in the end of the '50, allowed experiments in Nevada State and allowed the aware release, in the atmosphere, of a cloud of radioactive iodine to "observe the layout of the cloud" (please read here www.sfen.org).
In the site here you'll see that the quantity of radiations spread in the atmosphere in Nevada is higher than the one coming from Chernobyl.
The reason of all this hurry and need of datas is the fact that the american citizens living in the area and hit by cancer are gathering and bringing charges against the USA governement.

In 1992 Mr. Mettler's thesis is dismantled by a study of an european scientif team.
Mr. Williams (England) and Mr.Baverstock (Finland), between those who worked on the project, demonstrate that the level's increasement of thyroid cancer is about 200%.
An epidemic.
The Unscear (tragic word game) block the publication of the european team till 1998 when the real datas, at last, reach the public.
12 years later.

Please just search on Amnesty International site this name: Bandazhevsky


Ps: don't believe the hype!

Gianluigi

Bandazhevsky was released on the 5th August 2005 after serving 4 yrs of an 8yr sentence.

Nothing new in suppressing information Gianluigi!

Thanks Beano!
Hope that Mr. Bandazhevsky is doing good and that he will be able to take his job ahead for the longest time possible!
Cheers
Gianluigi

Returning to the issue of Iran, the problem with outside inteference since the 50's has led to events of today. Medling CIA back then created todays news.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Isreal, with it's submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons also do not help calm the current stand off.

quote:

A Country without a nuclear weapon is not, cannot, consider itself independent!

No country on this planet is truly independent IMO. Tibet before the Chinese invasion came close to being independent because it was totally cut off from the rest of the world (and for good reason). No other country comes close to being truly independent - we live in a global village and everything is connected. Not even the US is independent because it needs to exploit weaker countries to maintain it's strength but it is way over-stretched and wallowing in crippling debt. America is losing ground to China daily. This process is seemingly unstoppable and thus the US is fighting for it’s very survival so we can expect to see some very dirty tricks indeed of which the illegal, immoral , unjustified and ill-considered invasion of Iraq is just the tip of the ice berg.

However Bush may well have gone too far. The US cannot stay in Iraq and nor can they leave (but stay they will or lose face, credibility and bullying power). There are congressional and senate elections in November and for Bush to maintain control he needs either another 9/11 and/or an excuse to bomb Iran which he is working on and my guess it may happen in early October unless he can get what he wants by more covert pressure.

A possible reasonable scenario for the next few years and even the next few months could be the following: Iraq will prove to be ungovernable and will split into three separate states - Kurdish, Sunni and Shia (and each will fight for control of the other on and off) and will be unstable for the forseable future. (Increasingly the mood amongst Iraqis is 'come back Saddam, all is forgiven)

America will further destabilise Iran which may eventually split into at least 2 separate states each fighting the other on and off. Stability in Saudi Arabia is crumbling fast and it may well split into two states, also, the Shias dominating the oil areas (and backed, of course, by you know who) and the Sunnis too weak to fight back but fight they will on and off with the US selling arms to both sides as usual. Pakistan is so unstable it too may well split in up to five mini states and of course there will be more fighting. Israel will be vulnerable as never before as surrounding Arab countries seek to deflect their population's attention away from their own failing economies and political instability. All this is down to Bush who having created the problems can then seek to profit by it by offering alliances etc in return for oil supplies and military support.

However, if the US bombs Iran and Saudi crumbles further (with US help) then we could be talking $120 dollars per barrel of crude by Christmas and the western economies will take a severe beating and we could see a three day week in the UK again. Bush is massively out of his depth here and is daily upping the stakes and the need for greater manipulation, interference and illegal action to a point where control will be lost.

In time to come Bush will be seen to be the worst president the US has ever had IMO. Impeachment is becoming increasingly more likely but I expect he will wriggle out of it. He and his cronies with their links to the oil industry will massively benefit from the new middle east order and increased oil prices.

All this concern over Iran and nuclear weapons is pure bollocks IMO. Please don't believe everything you read in our manipulated partisan media.

What happened to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse that should have opened for business at the start of April and which would have wiped 10% off the value of the dollar over night? It has been postponed. Why? Nobody seems to know. In fact it is likely that Iran has been bullied and threatened by the US not to open for business or face a nuclear strike (the so called Iranian nuclear issue is just a front for the real issue). No wonder Iran has been making some inflamatory remarks. The middle east is becoming increasingly destabilised and the common denominator in all of the trouble is G.W.Bush a complete moron and prince of the neo-con far right and Blair will support him like the self-serving little creep he is. Just watch Blair rake in the millions after he leaves office.

Here endeth the rant.

quote:

Here endeth the rant.

Your high quality rants are well worth waiting for, it is as if you are reading my mind (must get bigger tin foil hat), correcting the grammar and posting to this thread. Spooky indeed!

quote:

However Bush may well have gone too far. The US cannot stay in Iraq and nor can they leave (but stay they will or lose face, credibility and bullying power). There are congressional and senate elections in November and for Bush to maintain control he needs either another 9/11 and/or an excuse to bomb Iran which he is working on and my guess it may happen in early October unless he can get what he wants by more covert pressure.

At times of elections or when people have a growing distrust of their elected leaders an external enemy is often just what the doctor ordered but be warned Galtieri got it wrong and so could Bush.

As we discuss this, Iran has moved over 10,000 rockets and missiles into Southern Lebanon to be operated by Hezbollah, according to reports in Asharq Al-Awsat (Arab International Daily). Southern Lebanon can be considered Iran's front-line with Israel.

For a first hand account of the situation on the ground, looking from the Israeli side of the Lebanese border, read the excellent (and very brave) Michael Totten (update here). Totten has previously been in Lebanon and has interviewed Hezbollah themselves. He has also written fascinating accounts from Iraq and is planning to go to Iran next (if he lives that long). I will definitely buy the book when it comes out.

You can discuss the evils of Bush or Blair or Israeli submarines until you're blue in the face. Iran's Ayotalla and president have both spoken of their intention to destroy Israel. They are actively pursuing a nuclear programme and have lined up thousands of rockets along Israel's border.

I'd be surprised if Israel waited for Iran/Hezbollah to attack.

Regards
Steve

Excellent post Eric; my use of the noun Independent was meant in adjective tense …free from external control and constraint; an autonomous, independent, self-governing sovereign state etc etc.

Nuclear warheads are just a means to an end; the irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Beano:
Excellent post Eric; my use of the noun Independent was meant in adjective tense …free from external control and constraint; an autonomous, independent, self-governing sovereign state etc etc.

Beano,

I knew what you meant I just wanted an excuse to have a rant. I had been up all night playing good samaritan to a suicdal friend, I had a horrible headache and felt the need to vent some spleen before hitting the hay.

All the best,

Erik

[/QUOTE]

Steve,

When I click on your first link I get an article called:

Iran's Secret Plan if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"

Nothing about what they have done only what someone alleges they will do if America nukes them (and why not? I wonder what the US would do to Iran if Iran nuked the US!). Is this the article you meant to link to or is there some mistake?

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
As we discuss this, Iran has moved over 10,000 rockets and missiles into Southern Lebanon to be operated by Hezbollah,

LOL - I am wondering what route they took to get the rockets/missiles from Iran to the Israeli border. Do you think they went through Iraq and Syria under the nose of the American and UK forces and a bunch of satellites? Or did they go via Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan? It seems they have completely blindsided US and Mossad Intelligence and if they can do that they are probably setting up missiles and rockets in Great Missenden even as I type. Yikes.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
The US cannot stay in Iraq and nor can they leave (but stay they will or lose face, credibility and bullying power).

Have a friend, an infantry colonel, calling from Baghdad sometimes and he says nothing but between lines the situation is the same as the last days of Saigon.
The matter is that in Badhdad time is suspended.
A never ending falling.

Ps: should i have to wax my c. boots?

Ciao
Gianluigi

Erik, the article Asharq Al-Awsat states that Lebanese Hezbollah already has the rockets:

As for the Lebanese Hezbollah, several loads of arms have been sent to; they include rockets, explosives, and guided missiles. Hezbollah's arsenal includes more than 10 thousand rockets short-range rockets and missiles including Fajr, Nour, Arash, Hadid.

However, I don't know this publication so don't know their bias or how reliable their 'source' is likely to be. If the rockets are there, Mossad, the CIA and MI6 are likely to know about them, although they didn't perform particularly well over WMD in Iraq. Syria would have been the most likely route, particularly as they were in control of Lebanon until recently and they have rockets of their own. I admit that I have no idea how accurate this report was.

However, I am concerned by Michael Totten's report, as he is someone with whom I have corresponded personally. If his sources say that something's about to 'go off' in Southern Lebanon, I take that seriously.

Following your warning I immediately went and checked Great Missenden. Strangely enough, there have been a number of new structures erected since last week, including a large rocket-shaped object. My kids tell me that it's a fun-fair with a helter-skelter but I assume that's just a cover. Well, you can't be too careful.

Steve

I may have over-reacted but he's been getting right up my nose recently. What plan? Tosser.*

Both 1 & 2 might well have helped flesh out the Aawsat Link. The fate of the Shehab 3 weapon seems unclear at best as not too many can be seen to have been on Iran's stock sheets over the past few years. So who has them, who supplied them and do they exist at all? The only information I can find about these 50 weapons points to the Ali Nouri Zadeh link.

Chieftain, M-60a1, M-47, Scorpion, M-109, M-113, CH-47...................
Vintage goes strong.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
... Iran's Ayotalla and president have both spoken of their intention to destroy Israel. They are actively pursuing a nuclear programme and ......

They are reacting to the rhetoric thrown at them. These on going rhetorics are fueling more rhetorics. And so it goes till.....Kaboom!

quote:

I'd be surprised if Israel waited for Iran/Hezbollah to attack.

Regards
Steve

If so were to occur, then troubled times and hardship will befall all of us one way or another. Possibly no more upgrades for my Hi-fi.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
They are reacting to the rhetoric thrown at them.

The ability to react well in advance of the rhetoric thrown is truly admirable.

More blatant propoganda:

Son of Shah Plots Overthrow of Regime - My kind of guy.

Today's May Day Rallies in Tehran are also a step in the right direction - plenty of other sources for this story as well.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
More blatant propoganda:

Son of Shah Plots Overthrow of Regime - My kind of guy.

Today's May Day Rallies in Tehran are also a step in the right direction - plenty of other sources for this story as well.

One of the most transparently obvious right wing neo-con propaganda websites in existence and part funded by the CIA of course. The whole article demonstrates America's intent to overthrow the present regime in Iran and install the puppet Pahlavi who will do America's bidding and supply oil at favourable prices in return for the throne. Are you going to buy one of the T shirts depicting Hilary Clinton as a Communist or buy one of the many recommended books on intelligent design or one of the many recommended books explaining how the US is at war with Islam? I note President Ray-gun was a fan and also Col. Oliver North. I had a good rummage around this website then I needed to take a shower. Wake up and smell the Starbucks - America is run by Fascists.

Erik, this is your wake-up call, too.

Ok, we disagree over the rights and wrongs of the issue. However, irrespective, the governments of the US, UK, France or Germany will not permit Iran to have nukes. This seems to be the view of the Western governments. Perhaps we can agree on that.

Now, you believe the Iranian leadership when it says that it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I don't. I don't think our governments do either.

Therefore the real world question is whether you would prefer an operation to overthrow the Iranian regime or war?

Given the choice and in the event that there is no Iranian climbdown, I would favour regime change.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
One of the most transparently obvious right wing neo-con propaganda websites in existence and part funded by the CIA of course. The whole article demonstrates America's intent to overthrow the present regime in Iran and install the puppet Pahlavi who will do America's bidding and supply oil at favourable prices in return for the throne.

I think you're way off-beam here.

Firstly, the US (CIA?) are putting considerable funds into propoganda in Iran. Good, dollars are better than bombs.

Secondly, there's no intention to install Pahlavi as a puppet. Read the article more carefully. I've been in communication with Azarmehr who is a London-based Iranian blogger. He's opposed to any military action in Iran. You might be interested to see what he wrote in response to my comment.

Thirdly, oil is traded on the world's markets and obeys market forces. Friends and enemies alike have no difficulties in supplying friends and enemies alike. Money seems to trump politics in world politics. I believe that the US have paid the same for oil to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Iraq.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
[..]the governments of the US, UK, France or Germany will not permit Iran to have nukes. This seems to be the view of the Western governments. [..]

Now, you believe the Iranian leadership when it says that it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I don't. I don't think our governments do either.

Therefore the real world question is whether you would prefer an operation to overthrow the Iranian regime or war?

Given the choice and in the event that there is no Iranian climbdown, I would favour regime change.

I would have thought, Steve, that from Iran's point of view, implicit in the push for regime change would be a de facto declaration of war on the part of Bush and his allies.

The consequences of which would be...well, have a quick look at the disastrous state in which Iraq has found itself as a result of what amounted to the previous push for regime change.

And whatever we might think of Ahmedinejad, he was elected to office, ie. it was the will of his own people that put him there, an achievement that could not be attributed to Saddam Hussein in Iraq of course.

A dangerous precedent is being set here along with a lot of disturbingly short memories in the highest reaches of the US (and British) government(s), ie. that it is ok to invade and attempt to overthrow the leader of another sovereign nation just because we don't like what they say, or think.

It was wrong in Iraq, and it would be entirely wrong in Iran, too.

Cheers,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
Erik, this is your wake-up call, too.


[QUOTE] Ok, we disagree over the rights and wrongs of the issue. However, irrespective, the governments of the US, UK, France or Germany will not permit Iran to have nukes. This seems to be the view of the Western governments. Perhaps we can agree on that.

It is the stated view of the governments you list. It is the view for naive public consumption. It is not the real view. The real view is thesegovernments do not want competition that will weaken the US petro-dollar and strling and the Euro etc. which are linked to the dollar. I repeat the nuclear issue is not the reason for the de facto declaration of war against Iran at all.

Please read this carefully. A story about oil.

quote:

Now, you believe the Iranian leadership when it says that it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I don't. I don't think our governments do either.

Please list all the reasons as to why one country would go to war against another then see whether any of these reasons could possibly apply to Iran nuking Israel. Given that the none of the reasons could possibly apply to Iran and that Iran would invite retaliatory strikes from both Israel and the US I think it safe to say there is ZERO chance of Iran using nukes against Israel. Add to this the fact that Iran does not have Nuclear weapons and the Zero is reduced still further. You are victim of propaganda.

quote:

Therefore the real world question is whether you would prefer an operation to overthrow the Iranian regime or war?

Therefore there is no therefore. I would prefer the US and its poodle satellites to stop interfering with other sovereign states.

quote:

Given the choice and in the event that there is no Iranian climbdown, I would favour regime change.

There is a choice and the choice is to Bomb an innocent country or lose out to fair economic competetion. America prefers to bomb or effect regime change. The message is clear - 'let us screw you over or we will change your regime and failing that we will bomb you'.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

[QUOTE] Firstly, the US (CIA?) are putting considerable funds into propoganda in Iran. Good, dollars are better than bombs.

True, but what is your point? They will effect regime change if they can and if not they will bomb. Both are immoral, illegal and unjustified.

quote:

Secondly, there's no intention to install Pahlavi as a puppet.

Did you not just admit that the US is putting considerable funds into propaganda in Iran? To effect regime change they must first get rid of one and then install another to its liking yes?

quote:

Thirdly, oil is traded on the world's markets and obeys market forces. Friends and enemies alike have no difficulties in supplying friends and enemies alike. Money seems to trump politics in world politics. I believe that the US have paid the same for oil to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Iraq.

Sorry Steve, but this is just not true at all. Please read these articles and you will see oil, above any other commpdity is a strategic commodity and a strategic weapon and is traded in all kinds of way to suit changing strategic, political and economic needs.

Here are a few articles you may like to dip into.

The proposed Iranian OIl Bourse

Petrodollar warfare

The Iranian threat: The Bomb or the Euro?

The Iranian Oil Bourse could kill the US Dollar

There are a good many other articles like this which will help you to understand the REAL situation not the situation that is reported in the western media.

Having read these articles you may wonder why you have not seen anything about this stuff in the media and why the Iranian Oil Bourse has not opened for business. Then you will begin to see the tip of the ice berg.

All the best,

Erik