isn't there any way we can think of improving our lot on this planet besides following fanatical or greedy leaders?
ken
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htmIraqi Retreats, 1982-84
The Iranian high command passed from regular military leaders to clergy in mid-1982.
In March 1982, Tehran launched its Operation Undeniable Victory, which marked a major turning point, as Iran penetrated Iraq's "impenetrable" lines, split Iraq's forces, and forced the Iraqis to retreat. Its forces broke the Iraqi line near Susangerd, separating Iraqi units in northern and southern Khuzestan. Within a week, they succeeded in destroying a large part of three Iraqi divisions. This operation, another combined effort of the army, Pasdaran, and Basij, was a turning point in the war because the strategic initiative shifted from Iraq to Iran.
In May 1982, Iranian units finally regained Khorramshahr, but with high casualties. After this victory, the Iranians maintained the pressure on the remaining Iraqi forces, and President Saddam Hussein announced that the Iraqi units would withdraw from Iranian territory. Saddam ordered a withdrawal to the international borders, believing Iran would agree to end the war. Iran did not accept this withdrawal as the end of the conflict, and continued the war into Iraq. In late June 1982, Baghdad stated its willingness to negotiate a settlement of the war and to withdraw its forces from Iran. Iran refused.
In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan on Iraqi territory, near Basra. Although Basra was within range of Iranian artillery, the clergy used "human-wave" attacks by the Pasdaran and Basij against the city's defenses, apparently waiting for a coup to topple Saddam Hussein. Tehran used Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers in one of the biggest land battles since 1945. Ranging in age from only nine to more than fifty, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks. All such assaults faced Iraqi artillery fire and received heavy casualties. The Iranians sustained an immmense number of casualties, but they enabled Iran to recover some territory before the Iraqis could repulse the bulk of the invading forces.
By the end of 1982, Iraq had been resupplied with new Soviet materiel, and the ground war entered a new phase. Iraq used newly acquired T-55 tanks and T-62 tanks, BM-21 Stalin Organ rocket launchers, and Mi-24 helicopter gunships to prepare a Soviet-type three-line defense, replete with obstacles, minefields, and fortified positions. The Combat Engineer Corps proved efficient in constructing bridges across water obstacles, in laying minefields, and in preparing new defense lines and fortifications.
Throughout 1983 both sides demonstrated their ability to absorb and to inflict severe losses. Iraq, in particular, proved adroit at constructing defensive strong points and flooding lowland areas to stymie the Iranian thrusts, hampering the advance of mechanized units. Both sides also experienced difficulties in effectively utilizing their armor. Rather than maneuver their armor, they tended to dig in tanks and use them as artillery pieces. Furthermore, both sides failed to master tank gunsights and fire controls, making themselves vulnerable to antitank weapons.
In 1983 Iran launched three major, but unsuccessful, humanwave offensives, with huge losses, along the frontier. On February 6, Tehran, using 200,000 "last reserve" Pasdaran troops, attacked along a 40-kilometer stretch near Al Amarah, about 200 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. Backed by air, armor, and artillery support, Iran's six-division thrust was strong enough to break through. In response, Baghdad used massive air attacks, with more than 200 sorties, many flown by attack helicopters. More than 6,000 Iranians were killed that day, while achieving only minute gains. In April 1983, the Mandali-Baghdad northcentral sector witnessed fierce fighting, as repeated Iranian attacks were stopped by Iraqi mechanized and infantry divisions. Casualties were very high, and by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition.
Beginning in 1984, Baghdad's military goal changed from controlling Iranian territory to denying Tehran any major gain inside Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq tried to force Iran to the negotiating table by various means. First, President Saddam Hussein sought to increase the war's manpower and economic cost to Iran. For this purpose, Iraq purchased new weapons, mainly from the Soviet Union and France. Iraq also completed the construction of what came to be known as "killing zones" (which consisted primarily of artificially flooded areas near Basra) to stop Iranian units. In addition, according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations and launched attacks on many economic centers. Despite Iraqi determination to halt further Iranian progress, Iranian units in March 1984 captured parts of the Majnun Islands, whose oil fields had economic as well as strategic value.
Second, Iraq turned to diplomatic and political means. In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations. But Tehran rejected this offer and restated its refusal to negotiate with President Hussein.
Third, Iraq sought to involve the superpowers as a means of ending the war. The Iraqis believed this objective could be achieved by attacking Iranian shipping. Initially, Baghdad used borrowed French Super Etendard aircraft armed with Exocets. In 1984 Iraq returned these airplanes to France and purchased approximately thirty Mirage F-1 fighters equipped with Exocet missiles. Iraq launched a new series of attacks on shipping on February 1, 1984.
The War of Attrition, 1984-87
By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded. Most foreign military analysts felt that neither Iraq nor Iran used its modern equipment efficiently. Frequently, sophisticated materiel was left unused, when a massive modern assault could have won the battle for either side. Tanks and armored vehicles were dug in and used as artillery pieces, instead of being maneuvered to lead or to support an assault. William O. Staudenmaeir, a seasoned military analyst, reported that "the land-computing sights on the Iraqi tanks [were] seldom used. This lower[ed] the accuracy of the T-62 tanks to World War II standards." In addition, both sides frequently abandoned heavy equipment in the battle zone because they lacked the skilled technical personnel needed to carry out minor repairs.
Analysts also assert that the two states' armies showed little coordination and that some units in the field have been left to fight largely on their own. In this protracted war of attrition, soldiers and officers alike failed to display initiative or professional expertise in combat. Difficult decisions, which should have had immediate attention, were referred by section commanders to the capitals for action. Except for the predictable bursts on important anniversaries, by the mid-1980s the war was stalemated.
In early 1984, Iran had begun Operation Dawn V, which was meant to split the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and 4th Army Corps near Basra. In early 1984, an estimated 500,000 Pasdaran and Basij forces, using shallow boats or on foot, moved to within a few kilometers of the strategic Basra-Baghdad waterway. Between February 29 and March 1, in one of the largest battles of the war, the two armies clashed and inflicted more than 25,000 fatalities on each other. Without armored and air support of their own, the Iranians faced Iraqi tanks, mortars, and helicopter gunships. Within a few weeks, Tehran opened another front in the shallow lakes of the Hawizah Marshes, just east of Al Qurnah, in Iraq, near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Iraqi forces, using Soviet- and French-made helicopter gunships, inflicted heavy casualties on the five Iranian brigades (15,000 men) in this Battle of Majnun.
Lacking the equipment to open secure passages through Iraqi minefields, and having too few tanks, the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack." The Iranians made little, if any, progress despite these sacrifices. Perhaps as a result of this performance, Tehran, for the first time, used a regular army unit, the 92nd Armored Division, at the Battle of the Marshes a few weeks later.
Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men, but even this was deemed an unacceptable ratio, and in February the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Despite repeated Iraqi denials, between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons. The year 1984 closed with part of the Majnun Islands and a few pockets of Iraqi territory in Iranian hands. Casualties notwithstanding, Tehran had maintained its military posture, while Baghdad was reevaluating its overall strategy.
The major development in 1985 was the increased targeting of population centers and industrial facilities by both combatants. In May Iraq began aircraft attacks, long-range artillery attacks, and surface-to-surface missile attacks on Tehran and on other major Iranian cities. Between August and November, Iraq raided Khark Island forty-four times in a futile attempt to destroy its installations. Iran responded with its own air raids and missile attacks on Baghdad and other Iraqi towns. In addition, Tehran systematized its periodic stop-and-search operations, which were conducted to verify the cargo contents of ships in the Persian Gulf and to seize war materiel destined for Iraq.
The Iraqi Air Force's first real strategic bombing campaign, the so-called war of the cities, aimed at breaking civilian morale and disrupting military targets. Iraq's two efforts early in 1985, from 14 March to 7 April and 25 May to 15 June, were reportedly very effective. Opposition from the Iranian Air Force was negligible to nonexistent, as the Iraqis hit air bases and military and industrial targets all over Iran (in Tabriz, Urmia, Rasht, Bakhteran, Hamadan, Tehran, Isfahan, Dezful, Ahvaz, Kharg, Bushehr, and Shiraz). Even Iraq's lumbering old Tu-16 bombers were getting through, presumably with MiG-25 and Mirage F-1 escorts, as the Iraqis hit targets as far away as Kashan, more than 360 miles from their own bases. Iran's official Kayhan daily confirmed this, reporting that Tehran was being bombed by "Tupolevs (Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22 Blinder bombers) flying at very high altitudes." The brunt of Iraq's bombing offensive, borne by nearly 600 smaller Iraqi combat planes, has fallen on Tehran in an effort to crush Iranian morale. the Iraqis boasted of 180-plane raids on the Iranian capital. Antiwar feeling in Tehran was at an all-time high, as the Iraqis hit the city an average of twice a day and, on two occasions, six times. Among the areas hit were the Bagh-e Saba Revolutionary Guard Barracks, Tehran's main power station, the Military Staff College, the Military Academy, the main army barracks, and the Abbas Abbad Army Base. Southern Tehran's locomotive works and the heavy industrial area near Javadieh were also hit, and even the three military airfields that were supposed to protect the city-Mehrabad, Jey, and Qual'eh Murgeh-were repeatedly attacked with impunity.
Iraq's air force and 'Scud' stikes at Iranian cities pushed the Islamic Republic to look for a comparable response. Iran began the Iran-Iraq War with no SSM capability but managed to import SS-1 'Scud Bs' (R-17Es) in 1985 from Libya and in 1986 from Syria. The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which took charge of the weapons, used them against Iraq between 1985 and 1988. Iran used 'Scud Bs' from Syria, Libya and possibly North Korea against major cities, including Baghdad and Basra. During this first war of the cities, Iran's strategic depth prevented Iraq's missiles from reaching major targets such as Tehran. By 1988, however, Iraq had developed its extended range 'Scud', the al-Hussein, and took Iran by surprise with its strikes on key urban conurbations. In the spring of 1988, Iraq launched up to 200 SSMs against Tehran, Qom and Isfahan. Although only 2000 people were killed in these attacks, they caused panic in the populace and hundreds of thousands fled the cities.
During the war, Iranian leaders frequently exaggerated their capabilities in the missile field. Although their 'Scud Bs' could hit Baghdad, these weapons lacked the accuracy or destructive power to do significant damage. In addition, Iran was unable to match Iraq's quantity of missiles. Iraq fired 361 'Scud Bs' at Iran from 1982 to 1988 and about 160 al-Hussein's at Tehran in early 1988. In contrast, Iran fired 117 'Scuds' throughout the war, including perhaps 60 fired at Baghdad.
On 11/13/11 9:38 AM, Abdul Bangura wrote:
Mwalimu Obe, you forgot to add that our US government supported Iraq's attack on Iran. Some observers even stated that our US government pushed Iraq to attack Iran in order to counterbalance the rise of Iran in the region. The following is a chronology of events by John King.Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
Arming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
- Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
- Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
- Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
- Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
- ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
- Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
- Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
- Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
- Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
- Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
- Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
- Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
- Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
- Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
- Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
- Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
- Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
- Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
- Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Persian Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
- Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com
Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Chemical Warfare In The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
The Iran-Iraq War: Serving American Interests
The United States and Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Pictures of Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
--
> [Original Message]
> From: Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o.obe@gmail.com>
> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
> Date: 11/13/2011 1:12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against MilitaryStrike Against Iran
>
> Come on Ken, you know that very well it was Iran that was attacked and invaded by Iraq. The response to that is not called 'waging war' but self-defence.
>
> And by the way, the support that Saddam Hussein's Iraq received from the United States dwarfs anything that Iran may have offered Hezbollah in its resistance to Israeli occupation.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 13 Nov 2011, at 00:31, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "iran has not waged war on another country."
> > so the 2 million or so who died in the iran-iraq war were imaginary?
> > ken
> >
> > On 11/12/11 6:11 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> True: Boko Haram is not a country, although it's a clear intention of
> >> theirs to proclaim Sharia Law throughout what they dream will soon be
> >> be the Federal Islamic Republic of Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Whereas Iran is already an Islamic State - please take note - Iran
> >> is not an ordinary Muslim State, or some uncle tom kind of Islamic
> >> State and that's why it's called the Revolutionary Islamic Republic
> >> with its own unique national, regional and global agenda. Under the
> >> mantle of Wilayat-e-faqih, the state has its duties and
> >> responsibilities though perhaps it's unlikely that the Mullahs (the
> >> Council of Guardians) call for a referendum - a consultation with the
> >> people about the nuclear issue or about any other priorities on their
> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+Haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a#q=Boko+Haram&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ejh&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=kPK-Ttq6O5SK4gTPuMG4BA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBgQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b79e7cf5fdd41d7d&biw=1255&bih=844
> >>
> >> Iran and their surrogates Hezbollah are working for the erection of a
> >> New Islamic State between Jordan and the deep blue Sea - to replace
> >> Israel which they would like to wipe off the surface of the map ( God
> >> forbid) and they would like to call their new state the Great Islamic
> >> Republic of Palestine, the 23rd Arab State. I believe that they intend
> >> to create that state through military means.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that it's mainly the West that's worried about
> >> Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, but I assure you that all the
> >> neighbouring Sunni Arab Muslim countries, the Saudis, Egypt, the
> >> Turks, in short all the Sunnis great and small are a little worried
> >> about the more dominant role that Iran could play - militarily in
> >> their neighbourhood …
> >>
> >> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> >> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
> >> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are – in
> >> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> >> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
> >> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
> >> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted – as military
> >> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
> >> cause great sorrow.
> >>
> >> You say that "Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> >> is prohibited in Islam"
> >> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
> >> possession of nuclear weapons?
> >> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
> >>
> >> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
> >> because of your simple assurance that "Iran is an strictly Islamic
> >> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country."
> >>
> >> Looka here:
> >> http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4489-any-action-against-iran-will-speed-up-israels-collapse-ambassador
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 12, 10:27 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> >>> '...you too would have the same
> >>> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> >>> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> >>> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions."
> >>>
> >>> ch
> >>>
> >>> Iran is a state/country. Boko Haram is not. Boko Haram is amorphous and anomalous. Iran is not. The differences here is significant.
> >>> Iran has always made it clear that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited in Islam. Iran is an strictly Islamic state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country. She been attacked by other countries.
> >>> It is all well to be concerned about the western interests in the Middle East and oil. Should it not be as well to be concerned about Iran and her people, and their fear of external military attack.
> >>> Peace, true peace is usually possible and is more likely to be achieved if the concern of all parties are frontally, earnestly, and fully addressed. Peace in the Middle East or indeed any place else should be predicated on the resolution of the concerns of all parties to a conflict.
> >>> Those supporting a military stike against Iran probably know how the strike will begin. What no one knows is how Iran will respond to a military strike and therefore what happens after. What is needed in the Middle East is negotiated peace however difficult, not forced peace however "easy".
> >>>
> >>> oa
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:33 AM
> >>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>
> >>> The future in that area is uncertain - and nuclear weapons in the
> >>> hands of a theocracy which denies the Holocaust and has already talked
> >>> about wiping out Israel, is not to be taken lightly.
> >>>
> >>> If you are half as Nigerian as I am, then you too would have the same
> >>> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> >>> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> >>> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions.
> >>>
> >>> In the final analysis "prevention is better than cure" and when the
> >>> Shia doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman enter the political arena of
> >>> public diplomacy there's no telling exactly where the Iranian regime
> >>> is heading. It's extra dangerous because we cannot foresee that the
> >>> regime is destined to be stable., forever. Most of the Sunni World
> >>> backed Saddam Hussein in his 8 year war which he started against Iran
> >>> and since around that time there's been a storm brewing with the
> >>> custodians of the Holy places in Saudi Arabia and as you know the
> >>> whole area is the reservoir of oil supplies to the West, to China and
> >>> Japan......so nobody wants to see any nuclear tipped missiles flying
> >>> around in this area which would be better off without them and the
> >>> mad rush of the other neighbours to achieve nuclear capability. If
> >>> Gaddafi, and Saddam had had nuclear weapons we'd now be telling
> >>> another tale.
> >>>
> >>> Should Iran be given the opportunity of upgrading from peaceful to
> >>> military, in response to the IEAE saying so you were lying, they will
> >>> justify themselves with " But Israel also has" and the doctrine of "
> >>> All's fair in love and war."
> >>>
> >>> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
> >>> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.
> >>>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
> >>>> oa
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
> >>>> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> True. Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
> >>>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
> >>>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
> >>>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
> >>>> Prof. of History& African Studies
> >>>> History Department
> >>>> Central Connecticut State University
> >>>> New Britain
> >>>> CT 06050www.africahistory.netwww.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> >>>> emeagw...@ccsu.edu
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:53 AM
> >>>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>>> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> The bigger question is what would be the consequence of not doing
> >>>> anything?
> >>>> Some of the consequences of inaction are spelled out here in the
> >>>> alarming updates on the approaching inevitable showdown between Iran
> >>>> and those united in faith against an Iranian bomb, which all things
> >>>> considered ought to be feared...
> >>>> http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html
> >>>> On Nov 11, 4:29 am, Abdul Karim Bangura<th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Panetta warns on Iran strike consequencesUS defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
> >>>>> Last Modified:11 Nov 2011 01:46
> >>>>> Panetta says a strike on Iran will only delay its nuclear programme [EPA]
> >>>>> US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region.
> >>>>> "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday.
> >>>>> His comments came only hours after Tehran itself warned that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists."
> >>>>> Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment is in line with his predecessor's.
> >>>>> He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme.
> >>>>> "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered."
> >>>>> 'Toughest sanctions'
> >>>>> Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran.
> >>>>> "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said.
> >>>>> "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran."
> >>>>> The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday.
> >>>>> EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed.
> >>>>> Tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme were re-ignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be on-going.
> >>>>> Israel exacerbated speculation of a strike against Iran after last week'stesting of a ballistic missilecapable of traveling the 6,437 kilometres to Iran.
> >>>>> Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
> >>>>> Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> read more »
> >
> > --
> > kenneth w. harrow
> > distinguished professor of english
> > michigan state university
> > department of english
> > east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> > ph. 517 803 8839
> > harrow@msu.edu
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment