US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist

[Skipjack]

Now track that all back to Woodrow Wilson. Had Wilson (Democrat) kept his promise of keeping the United States out of World War I, it would have ended in a stalemate, and quite likely the Treaty of Versailles would not have occurred, or if it had, it would have excluded the catastrophic reparations, and subsequent building blocks of Hitler's political career.

Absolutely agree with that one.

[Diogenes]

Now track that all back to Woodrow Wilson. Had Wilson (Democrat) kept his promise of keeping the United States out of World War I, it would have ended in a stalemate, and quite likely the Treaty of Versailles would not have occurred, or if it had, it would have excluded the catastrophic reparations, and subsequent building blocks of Hitler's political career.

Absolutely agree with that one.

OMG! Twice? I fear for you my friend.

[williatw]

Now track that all back to Woodrow Wilson. Had Wilson (Democrat) kept his promise of keeping the United States out of World War I, it would have ended in a stalemate, and quite likely the Treaty of Versailles would not have occurred, or if it had, it would have excluded the catastrophic reparations, and subsequent building blocks of Hitler's political career.

Absolutely agree with that one.

OMG! Twice? I fear for you my friend.

The pivotal event that drove us into WWI was a document intercepted by british intelligence and leaked to us. The one that described Germany offering to help Mexico get Texas back from us in exchange for their help against us. Don't recall exactly what Germany expected Mexico to do to us. Pretty hard at that point for Wilson to resist the drumbeat to go to war. Though perhaps he was just looking for an excuse at that point..."the war to end wars" and all that.

[Starboard]

So am I the only one (pure postulation) who feels that the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and scientists are more likely Saudi and U.A.E, than Israeli and American.

I'm not saying that Israel and the U.S. aren't partially complicit (perhaps supplying intelligence), but it just doesn't seem like their usual modus operandi, and it's well known that the Saudis and the Gulf states are absolutely terrified of a nuclear Iran.
More so even than the Israelis or the Americans, they're just not as vocal, what with pretending that they care about the Ummah and all.

[Aslan]

There is a picture of SHAHID AHMADI ROSHAN (who was killed by Israeli Government) in this link.

http://rajanews.com/Detail.asp?id=113473

[Joseph Chikva]

So am I the only one (pure postulation) who feels that the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and scientists are more likely Saudi and U.A.E, than Israeli and American.

Wrong. Murder of separate scientists/ technicians would not be effective. For stopping the program they need kill a lot of people simultaneously. And that is impossible. So, no one from mentioned by you countries. As all those have very strong analytical departments studying aftereffect of each mission before making of decision on power action. Biting animal should be killed instead of tease.
More effective and easy to destroy all nuclear sites. And Israeli and US Air Forces capable to do this job. Despite to boasting of Iranians about increased strength of their air defense system. Once upon a time Israel has done something similar in Iraq.
From military side of view Iran is very similar to Iraq: they had 7 years war between each other with neutral result.

[Joseph Chikva]

There is a picture of SHAHID AHMADI ROSHAN (who was killed by Israeli Government) in this link.

http://rajanews.com/Detail.asp?id=113473

My condolences.
But there is a picture of SHAHID or another country's or MAGATE's informer AHMADI ROSHAN who was killed by unknown killers. And may be by Iranian special services.

[Skipjack]

The pivotal event that drove us into WWI was a document intercepted by british intelligence and leaked to us. The one that described Germany offering to help Mexico get Texas back from us in exchange for their help against us. Don't recall exactly what Germany expected Mexico to do to us. Pretty hard at that point for Wilson to resist the drumbeat to go to war. Though perhaps he was just looking for an excuse at that point..."the war to end wars" and all that.

Well actually they used the sinking of the Louisitania, a ship transporting contrabant to England, as an excuse to get into the war with Germany. The US had been supporting England for quite a while already before they officially joined into the war.

[CaptainBeowulf]

It was both the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram which drew the U.S. into the war. Often historical events have multiple causations, not just one.

We've had the Versailles argument before. Remember that Germany imposed reparations of 5 billion francs on France in 1871 and it also imposed reparations on Russia at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 (which the Russians ended up never paying). The Anglo-French demand for reparations was not unprecedented, except for that it was even larger than previous demands.

Strategically, the reparations were probably a bad idea, like Keynes argued at the time. But Hitler's rise could also have been stopped by Anglo-French intervention in 1936 or 1937. It was a double flaw in the Allied strategy: first hit Germany with reparations, then back down and turn to appeasement instead...

Question is, is the Iran case similar at all: imposing economic sanctions but not intervening militarily? Superficially it may seem so, but the devil is in the details.

[Starboard]

So am I the only one (pure postulation) who feels that the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and scientists are more likely Saudi and U.A.E, than Israeli and American.

Wrong. Murder of separate scientists/ technicians would not be effective. For stopping the program they need kill a lot of people simultaneously. And that is impossible. So, no one from mentioned by you countries. As all those have very strong analytical departments studying aftereffect of each mission before making of decision on power action. Biting animal should be killed instead of tease.
More effective and easy to destroy all nuclear sites. And Israeli and US Air Forces capable to do this job. Despite to boasting of Iranians about increased strength of their air defense system. Once upon a time Israel has done something similar in Iraq.
From military side of view Iran is very similar to Iraq: they had 7 years war between each other with neutral result.

I see no reason why they need kill a lot of people simultaneously. Just methodically taking out the ones with the scientific and technical know how would slow the project down, until the U.S. a builds up the political willpower needed for a physical attack on the infrastructure.

I'm not saying it's all the Saudis and the U.A.E's doing. The Stuxnet virus infestation was probably Israeli, and the explosive "accidents" happening at some of sites may be American or Israeli; but not everything is likely in concert and many of these actions may be independent of each other.

[Skipjack]

Of course Iran is not doing anything to present itself in a better light to the world. News like these here make it clear that the leadership in Iran is a bunch of morons and religious zealots:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3954 ... harges.php

It was both the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram which drew the U.S. into the war. Often historical events have multiple causations, not just one.

Maybe, but the fact that the Lusitania was transporting contrabant means that the US had been involved in the war already before they officially joined the war and that was what probably triggered the alleged telegram... if the thing was real in the first place.
The thing with telegrams is that they cant be proven to be real or not and the English still have not opened their archives about this time... They also waterbombed the Lusitania later to cover up evidence.

It is also worth considering that the US was probably the biggest winner of WW1. The war effort triggered industrial development and economic growth.

The Anglo-French demand for reparations was not unprecedented, except for that it was even larger than previous demands.

It was horrible. It put Germany and Austria into absolute chaos. By the time Hitler took over, the communists were about to take over Germany with the Raeterepublic and Russian agents seazing people from the streets mass "triing" them in repurposed schools and executing them via shooting commandoes against back yard walls.
My grandfather told me about the children eat the chalk of the walls of buildings due to lack of calcium while the British were firing their steam ships with the wheat from the reparation pays.
In Austria the christian catholic Austria fascists were not much better. Political opponents were hunted down or disowned by being taxed to death with private "auctions" of their property that was then usually bought for a nickel by the catholic church. My family lost all their property in upper styria including several sawmills and the first electricity company in the region to these bastards.

Then you have to realize that those reparation pays were meant to go on until 1984!!! People living at the time had no perspective of this horror ever ending in their life- time. In fact even the perspective for their grandchildren was looking bleak.

When Hitler came, people were ripe, ripe with anger and with no vision for an alternative, he had an easy time getting them to follow him. I can totally see how that worked and I cant blame anyone who did fall for it.
It is easy to fall for false promises, if they are the only ones you have.

Either way, Iran is quite a different story and the west has a good opportunity there to turn things arround without an all out war. I am still confident that there are better ways, especially today, with the means of counter propaganda and electronic distribution of information that is almost impossible to control. With all this, I cant, I refuse to believe that it is not possible to topple a regime that already has so much opposition within its own borders.
It could have almost worked for the resistance against Hitler and that was in the 1940ies with much worse circumstances for success.
Where are the strategists in the west that can turn this into a plan? Are they really that lame?

[williatw]

The thing with telegrams is that they cant be proven to be real or not and the English still have not opened their archives about this time... They also waterbombed the Lusitania later to cover up evidence.
It is also worth considering that the US was probably the biggest winner of WW1. The war effort triggered industrial development and economic growth.

I agree with your basic point that the US should have stayed out of WWI, and by that I mean we should not have preferentially sold armament to Britian and its allies but not Germany. It was not really our fight or business. If we were "neutral" we should have avoided economically favoring one side over another. As for the Zimmerman Telegraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
Don't know if there was ever any question as to its legitimacy. Wasn't aware Germany ever really denied its authenticity. What struck me about it was this from the wikipedia link: Mexican response: Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a general to assess the feasibility of a Mexican takeover of their former territories.[7] The general concluded that it would not be possible or even desirable for the following reasons:
Attempting to re-take the former territories would mean unavoidable war with the much stronger U.S.
Germany's promises of "generous financial support" were empty. Mexico could not buy arms, ammunition, or other war supplies, because the U.S. was the only sizable arms manufacturer in the Americas. The British Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic sea lanes, so Germany could not be counted on to supply Mexico with war supplies directly.
Even if Mexico had the military means to win the conflict with the U.S. and re-take the area in question, Mexico would have had severe difficulty accommodating and/or pacifying the large, well-armed, English-speaking population. Other foreign relations were at stake. Mexico had cooperated with the so-called ABC nations in South America to prevent a war with the U.S., generally improving relations all around. If Mexico were to enter war against the U.S. it would strain relations with those same ABC nations—who would later declare war on Germany.
Carranza formally declined Zimmermann's proposals on 14 April, by which time the U.S. had declared war on Germany.
Not saying armed citizens are a panacea but wonder if the abuses that occured in Germany & Austria that you speak of (and the much worse genocide in Russia) could happen when the citizenry are armed. It is just so much easier to control people when you have a monopoly on firearms....even the threat to use them against unarmed people keeps them in line. The Mexican sentiments about armed citizenry echos comments made later supposedly: Admiral Yamamoto: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

[polyill]

I want my .5$ in...

Maybe it's the Iranian govt. who kills the scientists :

1. Have a nuclear scientist do his work on a secret mil. project. Control him by means of threatening his family (if needed), or just lie to him about Medical research, Greater Good, Nation's sake or God's wrath.

2. Once the the scientist produces the desired research / discovery / technology, get rid of him - save some resources: dead man do not speak, no need to keep him secret and prevent enemy spies from contacting him, no need to keep domestic security (e.g. keep threatening his family, etc.), also, eliminating the prominent figures who posses lots of information is good for overall control of the field.

3. Tell the World your enemies are killing your scientists - Political point earned.

4. Create the "Shahid" aura around the physics research (or other scientific programs) - If you country is a theocracy for 30 years, surely there will be those on whom this will work.

5. Scare those who think, they can play the govt. and be informers for CIA / UN / whatever...

6. Scare your masses.

5....

6. PROFIT!!!1



I do not believe the Mossad is that much lacking in style as to commit 4 identical assassinations. It's been mentioned here, that scooter riders wearing all black and putting magnetic bombs onto cars is hardly the most efficient way to kill someone, let alone 4 times in a row. If I were Iranian police I'd restrict motorbike riding in certain ways and shoot any black biker on-sight... Unless the govt. told me not to

On a side note, black bikers w/bombs are SO f*ckin' 80's! I hate 80's

[Betruger]

That's begging for a rickroll.

[Diogenes]

The thing with telegrams is that they cant be proven to be real or not and the English still have not opened their archives about this time... They also waterbombed the Lusitania later to cover up evidence.
It is also worth considering that the US was probably the biggest winner of WW1. The war effort triggered industrial development and economic growth.

I agree with your basic point that the US should have stayed out of WWI, and by that I mean we should not have preferentially sold armament to Britian and its allies but not Germany. It was not really our fight or business. If we were "neutral" we should have avoided economically favoring one side over another. As for the Zimmerman Telegraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
Don't know if there was ever any question as to its legitimacy. Wasn't aware Germany ever really denied its authenticity. What struck me about it was this from the wikipedia link: Mexican response: Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a general to assess the feasibility of a Mexican takeover of their former territories.[7] The general concluded that it would not be possible or even desirable for the following reasons:
Attempting to re-take the former territories would mean unavoidable war with the much stronger U.S.
Germany's promises of "generous financial support" were empty. Mexico could not buy arms, ammunition, or other war supplies, because the U.S. was the only sizable arms manufacturer in the Americas. The British Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic sea lanes, so Germany could not be counted on to supply Mexico with war supplies directly.
Even if Mexico had the military means to win the conflict with the U.S. and re-take the area in question, Mexico would have had severe difficulty accommodating and/or pacifying the large, well-armed, English-speaking population. Other foreign relations were at stake. Mexico had cooperated with the so-called ABC nations in South America to prevent a war with the U.S., generally improving relations all around. If Mexico were to enter war against the U.S. it would strain relations with those same ABC nations—who would later declare war on Germany.
Carranza formally declined Zimmermann's proposals on 14 April, by which time the U.S. had declared war on Germany.
Not saying armed citizens are a panacea but wonder if the abuses that occured in Germany & Austria that you speak of (and the much worse genocide in Russia) could happen when the citizenry are armed. It is just so much easier to control people when you have a monopoly on firearms....even the threat to use them against unarmed people keeps them in line. The Mexican sentiments about armed citizenry echos comments made later supposedly: Admiral Yamamoto: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

I fear the time is coming where an Armed citizenry will be no match for a despotic dictator. See my thread "Skynet is coming."