Suing each other over Iran :-)

Science > Physics > Suing each other over Iran :-)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Maleki"
Date:	30 Sep 2004 11:11:34 AM
Object:	Suing each other over Iran :-)

IEEE is suing U.S. government over access to Iranian
scientific publications. ("Oh can't you see") What a fucked
up country. If you are a United States entity wanting to
have access to Iranian scientific publications, you risk a
one million dollar fine!
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1096260732323880.xml
--
man migam nareh to migi bedush!
.

User: "Helmut Wabnig **********"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	30 Sep 2004 11:41:18 AM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:11:34 -0500, Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com>
wrote:

IEEE is suing U.S. government over access to Iranian
scientific publications. ("Oh can't you see") What a fucked
up country. If you are a United States entity wanting to
have access to Iranian scientific publications, you risk a
one million dollar fine!

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1096260732323880.xml

Any data on Iranian Ultracentrifuges?
Are they better than , e.g., German?
Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."
Remember that sentence.
w.
--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
IN NONE WE TRUST.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

.

User: "Alfred Einstead"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 12:04:45 AM

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

More accurately: "Nuclear weapons for Iran don't do squat."
What are they going to do? Nuke Palestinians? Oops. I mean
Israelis. Oops. I mean The Nuke Can't Tell The Difference.
Anything going into Israel vaporizes the West Bank and Gaza.
Anything going into the West Bank and Gaza vaporizes Israel.
The Jordan River is within walking distance (for me) from the
Mediterranean. It's all scrunched up together and mixed
like black and white striations in marble. Nuke one, nuke
all. Palestine and Israel suffer the fate of being one
another's human shield, rendering both immune to nuclear
attack (... except by one opposed to BOTH Palestine and
Israel!)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 12:54:33 AM

Alfred Einstead <whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

Or one who doesn't care who dies; seems to be a lot of people in the
area with that attitude.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.

User: "Morituri-Max"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 01:12:13 AM

Alfred Einstead wrote:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

I'd rather see Iran go up... Oops.. pulled the pin at the wrong time.. too bad
they don't believe in reincarnation..
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 01:36:31 AM

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

(Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: "hanson"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 10:22:20 AM

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush said:"Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

[hanson]
Bush, like all politicians, says a lot of things when the days are long.

[Alfred]

[Mati Meron]

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

[hanson]
"unwarranted assumption"...Like what?
= that Alfred over-rates the effectivness of nukes and
understates the distances?... or...
= that the Arabs/Muslims,~1 Billion strong, can absorb a
"loss-by-nuke" of a few millions of theirs, while the Israelis/Jews,
only some ~13 million in numbers, cannot afford that?
I still say that a MAD nuke policy in the ME will stabilize the
situation to the point where the Arabs FINALLY start to police
themselves and the Jews FINALLY stop stealing land from the
Palis, few acres at a time. If neither of these two *****
populations can't do such a simple thing, then initiating MAD
will be a welcome solution.
I am getting tired of paying high gas prices because of Arab
fanaticism & sick of hearing Sen. Lieberman promoting
"assured healthcare for Israelis", (CNN-HL 10-1604), while
1/2 the population in the US can NOT afford such.
Money saved from lower gas prices and not sending $6 billion
each year to Israel would go along way to pay for decent
health care in the US....instead of having these US (tax payer)
moneys fueling the quarrel between these two sets of assholes
in the Middle East.
I wonder whether we keep on doing this becuase of the fact that
we, the USA, do suffer from, and are grievously plagued, by a
still undiagnosed, much less unacknowledged, collective aberration
of a pathological "brothers' keepers" syndrome or fetish ...AHAHA...
ahahaha.......ahahahahanson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 04:59:28 AM

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 08:44:51 PM

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	17 Oct 2004 05:54:40 AM

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-). Anyway, Novemeber is the next UN deadline where
deadline is a moving target which will never cease.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	17 Oct 2004 10:32:52 PM

In article <BomdnVRagY6J-e_cRVn-pQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-).

The assumption that if anybody there will have the ability and
inclination to vaporise Israel, a concern for the fate of the
Palestinians will stay his hand. Quite the contrary.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	18 Oct 2004 04:37:28 AM

In article <EPGcd.63$45.24951@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <BomdnVRagY6J-e_cRVn-pQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-).

The assumption that if anybody there will have the ability and
inclination to vaporise Israel, a concern for the fate of the
Palestinians will stay his hand. Quite the contrary.

Oh, that one. Another one is that once x concession happens,
these extremist Muslims will stop killing people.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	18 Oct 2004 03:15:56 PM

In article <K8mdnTtViagZPu7cRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <EPGcd.63$45.24951@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <BomdnVRagY6J-e_cRVn-pQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-).

The assumption that if anybody there will have the ability and
inclination to vaporise Israel, a concern for the fate of the
Palestinians will stay his hand. Quite the contrary.

Oh, that one. Another one is that once x concession happens,
these extremist Muslims will stop killing people.

Sure, but I was commenting specifically on the text above and this
assumption doesn't appear there.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	19 Oct 2004 06:13:43 AM

In article <0wVcd.67$45.26637@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <K8mdnTtViagZPu7cRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <EPGcd.63$45.24951@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <BomdnVRagY6J-e_cRVn-pQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-).

The assumption that if anybody there will have the ability and
inclination to vaporise Israel, a concern for the fate of the
Palestinians will stay his hand. Quite the contrary.

Oh, that one. Another one is that once x concession happens,
these extremist Muslims will stop killing people.

Sure, but I was commenting specifically on the text above and this
assumption doesn't appear there.

Yup. I really need more science training so I can stay focused on the
measurement part. I viewed the above assumption as a corollary to
the one I stated.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	19 Oct 2004 01:45:27 PM

In article <j7ednevn0vQAlujcRVn-tw@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <0wVcd.67$45.26637@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <K8mdnTtViagZPu7cRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <EPGcd.63$45.24951@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <BomdnVRagY6J-e_cRVn-pQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-).

The assumption that if anybody there will have the ability and
inclination to vaporise Israel, a concern for the fate of the
Palestinians will stay his hand. Quite the contrary.

Oh, that one. Another one is that once x concession happens,
these extremist Muslims will stop killing people.

Sure, but I was commenting specifically on the text above and this
assumption doesn't appear there.

Yup. I really need more science training so I can stay focused on the
measurement part. I viewed the above assumption as a corollary to
the one I stated.

Well, we can argue whether it is or isn't, but still, it wasn't stated
in the text. So, as you say, focus is needed.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	19 Oct 2004 12:39:47 PM

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:32:52 GMT,

wrote:

In article <BomdnVRagY6J-e_cRVn-pQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <n8kcd.59$45.22975@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <HtednWXxLOwHmOzcRVn-sA@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <Pj3cd.58$45.21218@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <e58d56ae.0410152104.27a7dc8a@posting.google.com>,

whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

You make an unwarranted assumption, in the above.

An? Singular?

Well, there is *one* that stands out.

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-).

The assumption that if anybody there will have the ability and
inclination to vaporise Israel, a concern for the fate of the
Palestinians will stay his hand. Quite the contrary.

"Inclination to vaporize Israel" is something that exists
only among some Arab people, and your problems aren't just
the Arabs. Therefore your solution to that problem or
similar ones doesn't save you. Fact is that you get as much
help from USA as you get blame for their actions by
connecting your ***** to USA. Therefore the real peace picture
involves a very strong AIPAC. There's your chances for
peace. Can't push AIPAC too far or too little. One would get
you nuked for what you do and the other for what USA does.
A general note: the particular consensus that exists among
Americans and Israelis about the Middle East has been there
for too long unchecked and uncriticised. "It's a sure sign
of impending trouble" as someone put it. So cherish these
words.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

"No Lord but Jehovah; no tax but that of the Temple; no
friend but the Zealots."
--
alaf bAyad be dahane bozeh shirin biyAd.
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	17 Oct 2004 02:29:03 PM

On Sun, 17 Oct 04 10:54:40 GMT,

wrote:

I'm having trouble identifying one that stands out from all the
rest :-). Anyway, Novemeber is the next UN deadline where
deadline is a moving target which will never cease.

Yeah you try that ***** with Iran.
--
khishtan nashnAkht meskin Adami
az fozuni Amado shod dar kami
"Mowlana"
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	19 Oct 2004 05:31:17 PM

On 15 Oct 2004 22:04:45 -0700, Alfred Einstead wrote:

Helmut Wabnig <**************> wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."

More accurately: "Nuclear weapons for Iran don't do squat."

Iran has other reasons for having them. Israel doesn't pose
a problem for a powerful Iran. It is only a problem to a
weak Iran.

What are they going to do? Nuke Palestinians? Oops. I mean
Israelis. Oops. I mean The Nuke Can't Tell The Difference.
Anything going into Israel vaporizes the West Bank and Gaza.
Anything going into the West Bank and Gaza vaporizes Israel.
The Jordan River is within walking distance (for me) from the
Mediterranean. It's all scrunched up together and mixed
like black and white striations in marble. Nuke one, nuke
all. Palestine and Israel suffer the fate of being one
another's human shield, rendering both immune to nuclear
attack (... except by one opposed to BOTH Palestine and
Israel!)

Arabs have underminded the rights of Palestinians for fifty
years, they would probably not hesitate to send all of you
to Moses. Geographical features of Israel makes it necessary
that in a nuclear war scenario it would have the help of
Iran. There's just no other choice there to prevent it.
Arabs will not choose to live with you if they can blow you
up, not because they hate you more than Iranians, but
because it can be done! If you do not come with some
comprehensive arrangement with the Iranians, you will be
left exposed to Arabs with nuclear arsenal and an Iran that
would not care what Arabs do to you. Arabs _will_ acquire
what they need in response to situation they feel they have
with Iran. Competition is not with Israel, so your say in
that process is limited.
Have a strong Iran, strong enough to hold back Arabs against
anything, then Arabs will let go of the idea of acquiring
nukes and all the trouble that they have to go through for
that. This resolves a large part of your security problems.
The rest is with how you control what USA does, because you
will find yourself partly responsible for that as well. You
have to have arrangements with Iran _extraneous_ to whatever
***** that there is between you and USA, to tackle the first
problem, and a strong hold on the core of U.S. politics to
avoid the second problem.
If you don't agree with me then I hope that you and others
can think better than me, because this thing is going to
affect all of us except USA. Think about it. Do you trust
USA in this? We as Iranians learned it the hard way not to
trust USA on _anything_.
--
termodinAmike mobAdelAti bA khArej nadArad.
"Mehdi Bazargan"
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	30 Sep 2004 02:47:07 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:41:18 +0200, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."
Remember that sentence.

That's a correct statement. Israel also doesn't have nuclear
weapons. Remember that one also :)
--
shaste pAt tuye cheshmet nareh!
.

User: "hanson"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	30 Sep 2004 06:17:34 PM

"Maleki" <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gzkjh264x2th$.ofg0l42yjta4$.dlg@40tude.net...

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."
Remember that sentence.

[Maleki]

That's a correct statement. Israel also doesn't have
nuclear weapons. Remember that one also :)

[hanson]
How wonderful!.....see, watch and follow a kind of
MAD policy emerging in the Middle East........
See Mehram, you still have a lot to learn from the West!
ahahahahaha......ahahahanson
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	14 Oct 2004 12:33:00 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:17:34 GMT, hanson wrote:

"Maleki" <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gzkjh264x2th$.ofg0l42yjta4$.dlg@40tude.net...

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."
Remember that sentence.

[Maleki]

That's a correct statement. Israel also doesn't have
nuclear weapons. Remember that one also :)

[hanson]
How wonderful!.....see, watch and follow a kind of
MAD policy emerging in the Middle East........
See Mehram, you still have a lot to learn from the West!
ahahahahaha......ahahahanson

I vaguely remember "MAD policy" in association with Soviet
Union and nuclear war threat. Other than that I don't know
anything about it.
Anyway, about similar issues in the middle east, it is
obvious to me that the key to the peace for any country in
that region, including Israel, is a nuclear weapons capable
Iran. Furthermore what's obvious to me is not to be taken
lightly :-) For instance, to stay within the subjects
treated in this thread, already in the 1991 it was "obvious
to me" that the source of nuclear weapons technology for
Iran would be Germany, not Russia or China or ... . It
turned out that my indirect reasoning had led me to the
correct conclusion. I even posted something about it in the
Iranian newsgroup years before the truth of this matter came
out in the open.
Israel, pretty soon (when Arabs manage to buy WMD from
Pakestan), will need a strong Iran for long-term survival
and peace. Like the time of the Shah. But in those days
conventional weapons would suffice. Things have changed now.
Nixon found a relatively short-term solution by allowing
Israel to go nuclear. Time is now ripe for Iran to carry out
the finishing touches to that plan, to the peace plan.
--
bar sepehre tireye hasti dami
chon setAreh rowshani bakhshido raft
ramz-hAye zendegAni rA nevesht
daftaro tumAre khod pichido raft
gasht andar cheshmeye khun nApadid
gheymate har ghatre rA sanjido raft
'uftAd andar tarAzuye ghazA
kAsh migoftand chand arzido raft
"Parvin E'tesami"
.

User: "Mark Fergerson"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	15 Oct 2004 09:09:13 AM

Some posts not getting through; retry:
Maleki wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:17:34 GMT, hanson wrote:

"Maleki" <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1gzkjh264x2th$.ofg0l42yjta4$.dlg@40tude.net...

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."
Remember that sentence.

[Maleki]

That's a correct statement. Israel also doesn't have nuclear

weapons. Remember that one also :)

[hanson]
How wonderful!.....see, watch and follow a kind of
MAD policy emerging in the Middle East........
See Mehram, you still have a lot to learn from the West!
ahahahahaha......ahahahanson

I vaguely remember "MAD policy" in association with Soviet
Union and nuclear war threat. Other than that I don't know
anything about it.

MAD is an acronym; Mutual Assured Destruction. It assumes both sides
possess unstoppable (long-range) nuke delivery systems, combined with
adequate launch-detection which triggers automated launch. The idea is
that either side's arsenal is capable of destroying enough of the other
to make survival moot, but not before the other can launch too. Both
sides tend to a "You launch, we both die, so let's haggle" mindset.
But that's not actually the scariest part; see below.

Anyway, about similar issues in the middle east, it is
obvious to me that the key to the peace for any country in
that region, including Israel, is a nuclear weapons capable
Iran.

<snip>
This is exactly what Hanson meant, but he satirically assumes anyone
who claims not to have them actually does. If this were the case,
there'd be a lot less "conventional" violence though because that can be
seen as provocation to go nuclear depending on how sane one's leaders
are. The word for this in the sixties was "escalation", and that's the
truly scary part.
I tend to agree with your statement above ASSUMING neither party
manages to sneak nukes into the other's territory. That would bypass the
detection-launch trigger, you see.

Israel, pretty soon (when Arabs manage to buy WMD from
Pakestan), will need a strong Iran for long-term survival
and peace. Like the time of the Shah. But in those days
conventional weapons would suffice. Things have changed now.

Concur. Non-WMDs would have just devastated the participants, and
their neighbors would have clucked their tongues and gone about their
business. WMDs will hurt non-participants too, so they'll be more
amenable to non-violent side-taking (with certain exceptions).

Nixon found a relatively short-term solution by allowing
Israel to go nuclear. Time is now ripe for Iran to carry out
the finishing touches to that plan, to the peace plan.

So far Israel has managed to resist the temptation to use theirs, but
that may just be because they have a limited supply and too many
potential targets. If they fired pre-emptively on say Saudi Arabia, they
know they'd be overrun immediately afterward by everyone else.
Conversely, no particular Arab country wants to be first.
OTOH your analysis depends on _which_ Arabs acquire WMDs. If they're
the extreme fanatics causing so much trouble currently, they just won't
care if they die or who else they take with them as long as the hated
Jews go down. This was not the case in the sixties; neither side was
willing to accept complete destruction in order to destroy the other.
Krushchev may have been a nutcase, but he was not going to let his
dream of World Communism die while killing Capitalism. That's why he
tried to base nukes in Cuba, so that America's detection-launch trigger
wouldn't have time to go to completion (the same applies for Eisenhower
et. al., substituting Europe for Cuba). This option isn't available in
the Middle East because everybody's too close together.
It is therefore in all Arab nations' (not to mention everyone else's)
best interests to restrain the extremists lest they bring on Armageddon.
We can assume they know that and are trying to do so behind the scenes
so to speak.
Mark L. Fergerson
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	15 Oct 2004 11:10:35 AM

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:09:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Some posts not getting through; retry:

Maleki wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:17:34 GMT, hanson wrote:

"Maleki" <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1gzkjh264x2th$.ofg0l42yjta4$.dlg@40tude.net...

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

Bush: "Iran will have no nuclear weapons."
Remember that sentence.

[Maleki]

That's a correct statement. Israel also doesn't have nuclear

weapons. Remember that one also :)

[hanson]
How wonderful!.....see, watch and follow a kind of
MAD policy emerging in the Middle East........
See Mehram, you still have a lot to learn from the West!
ahahahahaha......ahahahanson

I vaguely remember "MAD policy" in association with Soviet
Union and nuclear war threat. Other than that I don't know
anything about it.

MAD is an acronym; Mutual Assured Destruction. It assumes both sides
possess unstoppable (long-range) nuke delivery systems, combined with
adequate launch-detection which triggers automated launch. The idea is
that either side's arsenal is capable of destroying enough of the other
to make survival moot, but not before the other can launch too. Both
sides tend to a "You launch, we both die, so let's haggle" mindset.

But that's not actually the scariest part; see below.

Anyway, about similar issues in the middle east, it is
obvious to me that the key to the peace for any country in
that region, including Israel, is a nuclear weapons capable
Iran.

<snip>

This is exactly what Hanson meant, but he satirically assumes anyone
who claims not to have them actually does. If this were the case,
there'd be a lot less "conventional" violence though because that can be
seen as provocation to go nuclear depending on how sane one's leaders
are. The word for this in the sixties was "escalation", and that's the
truly scary part.

I tend to agree with your statement above ASSUMING neither party
manages to sneak nukes into the other's territory. That would bypass the
detection-launch trigger, you see.

Ohhohoh :) Then "it is obvious to me" that MAD is already
defunct.

Nixon found a relatively short-term solution by allowing
Israel to go nuclear. Time is now ripe for Iran to carry out
the finishing touches to that plan, to the peace plan.

No, Jews aren't hated. Iranians are. Arabs (extremists or
non-extremists) have Iran as their main issue, not Israel.
It's just there's nothing they can do about Iran at the
moment and therefore some of them busy themselves with the
tiny issue of Israel. Also Israel and Judaism are two
separate things. Judaism is an integral part of Islam.
Shi'ism on the other hand has "messed with" Islam, so the
Arabs think. It is actually what Islam was at the outset
programmed to expand and become, but Arabs tried to arrest
the development at the fetal stage and exclaimed, "that is
Islam". That's why they call it "Sonni" Islam, which means
"traditional" or "original" or "initial" Islam. What it was
at the outset rather than what it was to be and become. They
have some point, but so do Shi'ites.
Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

This was not the case in the sixties; neither side was
willing to accept complete destruction in order to destroy the other.

Krushchev may have been a nutcase, but he was not going to let his
dream of World Communism die while killing Capitalism. That's why he
tried to base nukes in Cuba, so that America's detection-launch trigger
wouldn't have time to go to completion (the same applies for Eisenhower
et. al., substituting Europe for Cuba). This option isn't available in
the Middle East because everybody's too close together.

It is therefore in all Arab nations' (not to mention everyone else's)
best interests to restrain the extremists lest they bring on Armageddon.
We can assume they know that and are trying to do so behind the scenes
so to speak.

Oh but they're doing more than just restraining themselves.
Let me stress the fact that the main concern must not be a
nuclear weapons capable Iran, but nuclear capable ARABS. A
powerful Iran would have no beef with Israel that couldn't
be remedied by peaceful actions. Israel would be just
another South Africa for Iran. But if you (the West) insist
to preserve the status quo for Iran, then you _will_ get,
soon, Arab states with limited nuclear arsenal at their
disposal because Arabs' main incentive for acquiring them is
a weak Iran. Now, in THAT picture you will not have a
defenceless Iran, neither by choice nor by force. That's
"obvious to me." And it is obvious to me that in that
picture it will be Israel at risk, not Iran. Because we can
defend ourselves against Arabs, nuclear or non-nuclear
capable Arabs. But can Israel? You can't fool yourself about
this.
But why the status quo when this can be prevented by
erradicating the Arabs main drive for having nukes. Let us
Iranians do our things and you won't have to worry about
anything as far as Israel and peace in the middle east is
concerned. You would only have to worry about your
"suppliers" worries :-)

--
khodAyA:
inhA ali rA tA khodA bAlA mibarand va AngAh 'urA
dar sat-he kasi ke az tars be "khalAfe shar'" ra'y
midahad va bA khA'en bey'at mikonad pAyin
mi'Avarand. tasbihguye velAyate jowrand va
rajazkhAn ke: "ne'mate velAyate ali dArim."
"Ali Shari'ati"
.

User: "Mark Fergerson"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 01:56:24 AM

Maleki wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:09:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Some posts not getting through; retry:

Maleki wrote:

Anyway, about similar issues in the middle east, it is
obvious to me that the key to the peace for any country in
that region, including Israel, is a nuclear weapons capable
Iran.

This is exactly what Hanson meant, but he satirically assumes anyone
who claims not to have them actually does. If this were the case,
there'd be a lot less "conventional" violence though because that can be
seen as provocation to go nuclear depending on how sane one's leaders
are. The word for this in the sixties was "escalation", and that's the
truly scary part.

I tend to agree with your statement above ASSUMING neither party
manages to sneak nukes into the other's territory. That would bypass the
detection-launch trigger, you see.

Ohhohoh :) Then "it is obvious to me" that MAD is already
defunct.

Not necessarily. Having a WMD secreted within enemy
territory, but not triggered, is equivalent to a "delivery
system", and ISTM that all parties have the capability to so
emplace them; no need for big hairy boosters. Who announces
first becomes the interesting thing, because the second to
announce has a severe credibility gap. But then,
professional wargamers think it reasonable to take their
word for it just in case. Then the haggling starts in
earnest, with spies gaining greater importance than ambassadors.

No, Jews aren't hated. Iranians are. Arabs (extremists or
non-extremists) have Iran as their main issue, not Israel.

Doesn't look that way from here, but that's hardly
surprising. Thanks for the "ground truth".
Actually that's irrelevant MADwise if more than two
participants are similarly armed and capable of inserting a
conventional WMD or nuke, because the first to fire will set
off _all_ the others. This ought to be adequately
frightening to long-range thinkers to keep MAD alive so to
speak.

It's just there's nothing they can do about Iran at the
moment and therefore some of them busy themselves with the
tiny issue of Israel. Also Israel and Judaism are two
separate things. Judaism is an integral part of Islam.

We've already agreed on this last point before.
As for "nothing they can do about Iran", well, ISTM it
depends what the extremists might consider an acceptable
outcome.

Shi'ism on the other hand has "messed with" Islam, so the
Arabs think. It is actually what Islam was at the outset
programmed to expand and become, but Arabs tried to arrest
the development at the fetal stage and exclaimed, "that is
Islam". That's why they call it "Sonni" Islam, which means
"traditional" or "original" or "initial" Islam. What it was
at the outset rather than what it was to be and become. They
have some point, but so do Shi'ites.

Hence the labeling by Western media of Sunnis as
"Fundamentalists". I can't wait for some CNN idiot to call
the Shi'ites "Reformed Muslims" or some such. That ought to
make thing even more interesting.

Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

I never thought it was, but it sure is played that way in
the Western media. Damn all media fools anyway.
ISTM that the Arab/Israel thing is strictly political in
the sense of controlling access to resources. There's no
sensible reason for Israel to have been created where it is
except to limit Arabs' access to the Mediterranean, and I
can see why that's pissed them off for half a century.
The Arab/Iran struggle you describe is largely religious
indeed, but there's a power politics level to it as well.
When the UAR was created it nearly united all Arabs, but
ISTM the West simply couldn't allow it, and secular states
like Iran were "encouraged" as they say. If the Shah had
been replaced by a theocracy things would be very different.
That's a very rough summary from _my_ memory of history
classes; got ground truth on that?

It is therefore in all Arab nations' (not to mention everyone else's)
best interests to restrain the extremists lest they bring on Armageddon.
We can assume they know that and are trying to do so behind the scenes
so to speak.

Oh but they're doing more than just restraining themselves.

Not _themselves_, just their and their neighbors' more
extreme elements. I do not equate all Muslim extremists with
all Sunnis or all Palestinians frinst any more than I might
equate all Crusaders with all Catholics or all Italians.
It's obviously much more complicated.
OTOH can I safely assume you were speaking to the
simplified media picture of things?

Let me stress the fact that the main concern must not be a
nuclear weapons capable Iran, but nuclear capable ARABS. A
powerful Iran would have no beef with Israel that couldn't
be remedied by peaceful actions. Israel would be just
another South Africa for Iran. But if you (the West) insist
to preserve the status quo for Iran, then you _will_ get,
soon, Arab states with limited nuclear arsenal at their
disposal because Arabs' main incentive for acquiring them is
a weak Iran. Now, in THAT picture you will not have a
defenceless Iran, neither by choice nor by force. That's
"obvious to me." And it is obvious to me that in that
picture it will be Israel at risk, not Iran. Because we can
defend ourselves against Arabs, nuclear or non-nuclear
capable Arabs. But can Israel? You can't fool yourself about
this.

I'm not trying to so fool myself; my statement above
about the likely result of a pre-emptive strike by Israel
against Saudi Arabia should have clued you.
But Israel is a single, even historically justifiable
target, and the source of a tank battalion is obvious,
whereas Muslim crazies can base anywhere or on the fly as we
know. If some Sunni group perpetrates and claims credit for
a smuggled nerve gas attack on Tehran, where do you sensibly
aim a counterstrike? How would you like Iran to get into the
kind of "quagmire" America's in with Iraq by shooting at an
apparently likely perpetrator that just happens to be innocent?

But why the status quo when this can be prevented by
erradicating the Arabs main drive for having nukes. Let us
Iranians do our things and you won't have to worry about
anything as far as Israel and peace in the middle east is
concerned. You would only have to worry about your
"suppliers" worries :-)

The only excuse for maintaining the status quo I can
imagine is that just as Middle East politics are severely
interwoven, with competing elements distributed among many
nations, so political alliances are interlaced all over the
world. That's partly why the issue of WMD "collusion"
between North Korea and Iran came up, you see. Not that I
personally buy any of it, but as I hope I've convinced you,
I'm not quite as susceptible to media-driven hysteria as the
average news consumer.
For all I care, the entire Middle East ought to be left
mostly alone to work out its own problems. Trouble with that
idea is, what does "mostly" mean in the context of
contradictory treaties and trade agreements between the
locals and the rest of the world? You have Western
Conservatives of one stripe or another wanting to make a
buck on the stresses (regardless of the harm the stresses
bring to the locals), Liberals wanting to "improve the
Peoples' lives" (regardless of what the locals might think
"improve" means), and so on, all competing for air time and
the influence it generates, claiming their individual
agendas have priority because of some 50-year-old piece of
paper. Too much time on their hands, methinks.
Mark L. Fergerson
.

User: "Thelasian"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 11:38:17 AM

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<oB3cd.50258$Lo6.8469@fed1read03>...

Maleki wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:09:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Some posts not getting through; retry:

Maleki wrote:

Anyway, about similar issues in the middle east, it is
obvious to me that the key to the peace for any country in
that region, including Israel, is a nuclear weapons capable
Iran.

Ohhohoh :) Then "it is obvious to me" that MAD is already
defunct.

No, Jews aren't hated. Iranians are. Arabs (extremists or
non-extremists) have Iran as their main issue, not Israel.

Doesn't look that way from here, but that's hardly
surprising. Thanks for the "ground truth".

Actually that's irrelevant MADwise if more than two
participants are similarly armed and capable of inserting a
conventional WMD or nuke, because the first to fire will set
off _all_ the others. This ought to be adequately
frightening to long-range thinkers to keep MAD alive so to
speak.

We've already agreed on this last point before.

As for "nothing they can do about Iran", well, ISTM it
depends what the extremists might consider an acceptable
outcome.

Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

Complete BS. The "Arabs" are not the borg who think collectively. Iran
has excellent relations with many Arab nations, both before and after
the 1979 revolution. It also has problem with some Arab nations, both
before and after the revolution - which are NOT religious issues at
all. The largest Iranian-Arab dispute currently is over the ownership
of a few islands in the Persian GUlf. That is a territorial dispute
which is common in many parts of the world, and has nothing to do with
religion, and dates back to the days of the SECULAR government in
Iran. The other major Iranian-Arab dispute was with IRaq over
boundaries of the Shatt-al Arab waterway, which again went far back
into the 1970's and again has no religious nature. Of course Iran is
not liked by extremeists list Al-Qaeda. However, Al-Qaeda can't be
labelled an "Arab" group. In fact, the whole usage of the word "Arab"
is questionable and vague. There are lots of people in the world who
speak Arabic and like other people in the world, they have a variety
of views and cultures and attitudes.
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	16 Oct 2004 02:22:06 PM

On 16 Oct 2004 09:38:17 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

But you don't measure the extent of "hate" they have for
Iran by what little disputes exist in the open. You measure
it by how they acted in response to Iran's move forward for
independence in 1979 (they decided to invade Iran), or by
how they listed Saddam Hossain's crimes in the court in Iraq
a month ago (invasion of Iran was not even mentioned - 8
years of slaughter of Iranians!). I'm talking about another
level of "dispute" between them and us, and you're talking
about what a journalist sees and conceives.

That is a territorial dispute
which is common in many parts of the world, and has nothing to do with
religion, and dates back to the days of the SECULAR government in
Iran. The other major Iranian-Arab dispute was with IRaq over
boundaries of the Shatt-al Arab waterway, which again went far back
into the 1970's and again has no religious nature. Of course Iran is
not liked by extremeists list Al-Qaeda. However, Al-Qaeda can't be
labelled an "Arab" group. In fact, the whole usage of the word "Arab"
is questionable and vague. There are lots of people in the world who
speak Arabic and like other people in the world, they have a variety
of views and cultures and attitudes.

All of them, with their variety of views, unanimously helped
Saddam Hossain with tens of Billions after Billions of
dollars in his and their war against Iran in the 80s. All
the Arab nations including those with no "territorial
disputes" with us helped him like it was their war. Their
beef with us is religious, and it doesn't help that Iranians
had never had any religious beef with them, because as long
as they are religiously inclined to destroy us we have an
issue of exactly such magnitude and weight in front of us.
The reason Iranians do not have reciprocal feelings toward
Arabs is that Sonni Islam is well within the confinements of
Shi'ite Islam. Ours is just a vastly more developed form of
the original move. Arabs are traditionally very good with
holding on to their precious resources, including Islam.
That's indeed how Islam and Koran has stayed intact for 1400
years. We thank and owe Arabs for this one. Iranians are
more of risk-takers and advancing type. We check everything,
pros and cons of anything, and we may want to change our
minds on something no matter what. We willingly threw away
even our religion (Zoroastrianism) in favor of Islam.
Remember that. But at the same time when we were forced by
Arabs to also relinquish our language in favor of Arabic, we
decided to keep ours. As a matter of fact Iran is the only
country that Arabs brought Islam to, and could not
subsequently change their language to Arabic. So we do what
_we_ want with what we have. Arabs hate us for that because
we did the same thing with their "Islam". Those fools think
Islam is something of theirs... Heh.
--
bar sepehre tireye hasti dami
chon setAreh rowshani bakhshido raft
ramz-hAye zendegAni rA nevesht
daftaro tumAre khod pichido raft
gasht andar cheshmeye khun nApadid
gheymate har ghatre rA sanjido raft
'uftAd andar tarAzuye ghazA
kAsh migoftand chand arzido raft
"Parvin E'tesami"
.

User: "Thelasian"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	17 Oct 2004 11:10:31 AM

Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<yfiemt7e9owo.yu2xr1hult3q.dlg@40tude.net>...

On 16 Oct 2004 09:38:17 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

Syria sded with Iran.
On the other hand theUS and UK backed Saddam.
So there goes your theory.
or by

how they listed Saddam Hossain's crimes in the court in Iraq
a month ago (invasion of Iran was not even mentioned - 8
years of slaughter of Iranians!)

Again, that's the US -istalled gov't of Irq not "the Arabs"
.. I'm talking about another

level of "dispute" between them and us, and you're talking
about what a journalist sees and conceives.

All of them, with their variety of views, unanimously helped
Saddam Hossain with tens of Billions after Billions of
dollars in his and their war against Iran in the 80s.

Your theory has holes. Syria backed Iran and the US and UK backed Saddam.
All

the Arab nations including those with no "territorial
disputes" with us helped him like it was their war. Their
beef with us is religious, and it doesn't help that Iranians
had never had any religious beef with them, because as long
as they are religiously inclined to destroy us we have an
issue of exactly such magnitude and weight in front of us.

The reason Iranians do not have reciprocal feelings toward
Arabs is that Sonni Islam is well within the confinements of
Shi'ite Islam. Ours is just a vastly more developed form of
the original move. Arabs are traditionally very good with
holding on to their precious resources, including Islam.
That's indeed how Islam and Koran has stayed intact for 1400
years. We thank and owe Arabs for this one. Iranians are
more of risk-takers and advancing type.

Racism is un-Iranian.
We check everything,

pros and cons of anything, and we may want to change our
minds on something no matter what. We willingly threw away
even our religion (Zoroastrianism) in favor of Islam.
Remember that. But at the same time when we were forced by
Arabs to also relinquish our language in favor of Arabic, we
decided to keep ours. As a matter of fact Iran is the only
country that Arabs brought Islam to, and could not
subsequently change their language to Arabic. So we do what
_we_ want with what we have. Arabs hate us for that because
we did the same thing with their "Islam". Those fools think
Islam is something of theirs... Heh.

--

bar sepehre tireye hasti dami
chon setAreh rowshani bakhshido raft

ramz-hAye zendegAni rA nevesht
daftaro tumAre khod pichido raft

gasht andar cheshmeye khun nApadid
gheymate har ghatre rA sanjido raft

'uftAd andar tarAzuye ghazA
kAsh migoftand chand arzido raft

"Parvin E'tesami"

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	17 Oct 2004 02:26:33 PM

On 17 Oct 2004 09:10:31 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<yfiemt7e9owo.yu2xr1hult3q.dlg@40tude.net>...

On 16 Oct 2004 09:38:17 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

Syria sded with Iran.

That was the exception to the rule because Syria itself was
bneing invaded by Israel (Israeli plan was to occupy Lebanon
_and_ syria - they were stopped by fresh Iranian war
know-how applied in Lebanon). Arabs were more willing to
invade Iran than preventing the invasion of Syria by Israel.
Saddam didn't help Syrians, Iran did.

On the other hand theUS and UK backed Saddam.
So there goes your theory.

They backed Arabs against Iran. Without a more than willing
Arab consensus West could not do this.

or by

how they listed Saddam Hossain's crimes in the court in Iraq
a month ago (invasion of Iran was not even mentioned - 8
years of slaughter of Iranians!)

Again, that's the US -istalled gov't of Irq not "the Arabs"

Again, without a more than willing Arab consensus behind it,
it would not have taken place.

. I'm talking about another

level of "dispute" between them and us, and you're talking
about what a journalist sees and conceives.

All of them, with their variety of views, unanimously helped
Saddam Hossain with tens of Billions after Billions of
dollars in his and their war against Iran in the 80s.

Your theory has holes. Syria backed Iran and the US and UK backed Saddam.

It has nothing to do with me. It is the fact.
--
be Ahu migeh bodo, be tAzi migeh begir.
.

User: "Thelasian"
Title: Re: Suing each other over Iran :-)	19 Oct 2004 01:48:34 PM

Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x2id9p8dcboi$.162vhlccja73w$.dlg@40tude.net>...

On 17 Oct 2004 09:10:31 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<yfiemt7e9owo.yu2xr1hult3q.dlg@40tude.net>...

On 16 Oct 2004 09:38:17 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Arabs' struggle with Israel is not religious in nature, but
with Iran it is.

Syria sded with Iran.

That was the exception to the rule because Syria itself was

A rule that has exceptions is not a rule. Countries -whether Arabs or
otherwise - act in their self interest and not based on tribalistic
notions of "Arabs" versus "Persians"

Arabs were more willing to
invade Iran than preventing the invasion of Syria by Israel.
Saddam didn't help Syrians, Iran did.

Iraq tried to invade Iran, not "Arabs"
During that time, while some countries supported Iraq, some did not.
Among its most important supporters were NON-ARAB nations too.

On the other hand theUS and UK backed Saddam.
So there goes your theory.

They backed Arabs against Iran. Without a more than willing
Arab consensus West could not do this.

So it was the fault of "the Arabs" that the UK and US armed and Backed
Saddam?

or by

how they listed Saddam Hossain's crimes in the court in Iraq
a month ago (invasion of Iran was not even mentioned - 8
years of slaughter of Iranians!)

Again, that's the US -istalled gov't of Irq not "the Arabs"

Again, without a more than willing Arab consensus behind it,
it would not have taken place.

I guess there's no arguing with you.

. I'm talking about another

level of "dispute" between them and us, and you're talking
about what a journalist sees and conceives.

That is a territorial dispute
which is common in many parts of the world, and has nothing t