The Iran Thread

[hippie_hunter]

Quadifi used to say some crazy stuff back in the day...........where's he now? There are ways to deal with dudes like this

After Iraq and Afghanistan, he was afraid that Libya was next. Iran is not afraid of that.

 

[hippie_hunter]

France is different. They did the unthinkable: "disagree"

But France only disagreed because not invading Iraq was in their best interests. They did not care about Iraq, they cared about France. The same reason why Russia opposed the war.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Iraq, like Vietnam, is a war entirely justified by lies and driven by greed, and we're not going to "win" this one either.

Iraq: overthrew a tyrannical dictator who only cared for his benefit

Vietnam: attempted to overthrow a democratically elected governemtn that was desired by the people

At least some good has come out of Iraq unlike Vietnam, and we have to wait and see before we can decide if the United States military is going to fail.

 

[sinewave]

Oh, you mean the INTELLIGENCE given by the CIA, British Intelligence and other intelligence agencies around the world. I see. Maybe Bush mind-controlled all of those intelligence agencies. I can see how that logic holds water...

you're still singing that song? we now know that bush knew at the time he declared war on iraq that they did not have wmd or chemical weapons and had no way of acquiring them. bad intelligence or not, bush new the truth and lied to the american public to gain support for it. read a newspaper for crying out loud.

 

[Addendum]

But France only disagreed because not invading Iraq was in their best interests. They did not care about Iraq, they cared about France. The same reason why Russia opposed the war.

But that's what every country does. Look out for their interests. What's the problem?

 

[lazur]

you're still singing that song? we now know that bush knew at the time he declared war on iraq that they did not have wmd or chemical weapons and had no way of acquiring them. bad intelligence or not, bush new the truth and lied to the american public to gain support for it. read a newspaper for crying out loud.

Please point me to a source for that rhetoric. And not an 'opinion' column or some other such garbage. But a reputable news source. Thanks.

 

[sinewave]

Please point me to a source for that rhetoric. And not an 'opinion' column or some other such garbage. But a reputable news source. Thanks.

here's one article that proves bush lied to us about finding biological weapons labs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html

here's another one about wmd:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

and another:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/06/iraq/main647743.shtml

i can't find articles on some other stuff right now, but i'm sure you've heard how bush ignored advice from people the administration seeked information from that told them that saddam did not have wmd and could not create them. plus, the whole thing where the bush admin took chalabi's lies seriously even though he was proven to be an unreliable source. seriously man, we've learned too much by now for you to keep playing the "bush is innocent" card.

 

[demento]

The whole 'passing the buck'/"it's the CIA's fault" argument just don't cut it with me. It's very apparent that Georgie, Dicky, and Rummy cherry-picked the evidence they needed in order to make their case for war.

 

[sinewave]

The whole 'passing the buck'/"it's the CIA's fault" argument just don't cut it with me. It's very apparent that Georgie, Dicky, and Rummy cherry-picked the evidence they needed in order to make their case for war.

that's crazy talk! why would they mislead us?

 

[Cho Chang]

that's crazy talk! why would they mislead us?

Because it's so easy?

 

[sinewave]

Because it's so easy?

lisa simpson: dad, you're the easliy suggestable type.

homer simpson: yes, i am the easily suggestable type.

 

[demento]

that's crazy talk! why would they mislead us?

Because it is in their interest (read "corporate America's interest") to do so. Duh!

Ya see, the defense contractors sell the stuff needed to go in and destroy everything so that the Haliburtons of the world can get paid to go in and fix what got broken. Meanwhile, the oil companies love it b/c it drives up prices and fattens their wallets, not to mention the vast resources that they'll be able to plunder after the dust finally settles. It's a runaway train packed with explosives, baby.

 

[sinewave]

Because it is in their interest (read "corporate America's interest") to do so. Duh!

Ya see, the defense contractors sell the stuff needed to go in and destroy everything so that the Haliburtons of the world can get paid to go in and fix what got broken. Meanwhile, the oil companies love it b/c it drives up prices and fattens their wallets, not to mention the vast resources that they'll be able to plunder after the dust finally settles. It's a runaway train packed with explosives, baby.

hmmmm, never heard that angle before. so, you're saying corporations are greedy and the bush administration has ties to corporations? that's news to me!

 

[demento]

hmmmm, never heard that angle before. so, you're saying corporations are greedy and the bush administration has ties to corporations? that's news to me!

Oh, that was a strictly rhetorical rant.

 

[sinewave]

Oh, that was a strictly rhetorical rant.

of course, they've out best interest at heart.

 

[Sequential76]

Please America, save us, you're our only hope.

I'm sorry we won't be able to help you... UNLESS

You deliver your message via R2 unit and a cool hologram effect!

 

[Sequential76]

That's not the point. The point is that if Iran develops nuclear weapons there is the potential for them to fall into the hands of terrorists. Politicians are just as corrupt in Iran as they are in America. Money talks, corrupts, and gives people the ability to buy things they shouldn't buy.

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

The United States pressed Russia on Friday to halt missile sales to Iran amid international efforts to defuse a standoff with Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

The U.S. wants other countries that are concerned about Iran's nuclear intentions to use their influence, be it cutoffs of trade ties or, in Russia's case, cancellation of a planned sale of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems.
"We think it's time for countries to use their leverage individually, and we think it's time for countries to band together collectively to make the same effort," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.
The United States and its allies claim Tehran is seeking a bomb under cover of a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program; Iran denies it.
Burns' call for individual nations to do what they can to isolate Iran sets up an alternate way to apply pressure to the clerical regime outside the U.N. Security Council's current review of the Iranian nuclear program.
The United States pushed for more than two years to bring Iran's case before the powerful U.N. body for possible economic and political sanctions. U.S. officials have said that is the best way to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear know-how that could be used for a bomb.
The council is now divided, however, over whether to apply sanctions to the rich oil exporter.
Burns left Moscow after two days of meetings this week with an agreement that something must be done to stop Iran, but no public movement from Iran's commercial partners Russia and China toward supporting sanctions.
U.S. officials denied that asking countries to individually apply their own forms of sanctions shows lack of confidence in the Security Council process or undermines it.
"We're dedicating ourselves to the Security Council process, and you'll see the United States be as actively engaged as anybody," Burns said.
"But if the Security Council cannot act over a reasonable period of time, then there will be an opportunity for groups of countries to organize themselves together for the purpose of isolating the Iranians diplomatically and economically."
Russia dug in its heels Friday, saying there is not yet proof that Iran is pursuing a bomb and that the nuclear crisis should be resolved by the less powerful U.N. nuclear watchdog agency instead of the Security Council.
"There is no such issue (of sanctions) for us," Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of the Kremlin Security Council was quoted as saying by the RIA-Novosti news agency. "We are not discussing it."
Russia holds veto power as one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
"Those that might prevent the Security Council from acting effectively need to understand that the international community has to find a way — and will find a way — to express our displeasure with the Iranians," Burns said.
There should be no export of so-called dual-use technology to Iran, Burns said, a reference to hardware or computer equipment that Iran might legally buy abroad but that could be used to pursue a nuclear weapon.
Beyond those safeguards, "We think it's very important that countries like Russia, for instance, freeze any arms sales planned for Iran," Burns said.
Russia announced plans last year to sell 29 sophisticated Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran under a contract worth about $700 million.
"We hope and we trust that that deal will not go forward because this is not time for business as usual with the Iranian government," Burns said.
Russian officials had said earlier Friday that the deal is still on, despite U.S. pressure.
"We'll continue to work at it," Burns said. "We felt it was important to press the issue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran

 

[raybia]

Iran just may have an ally if the U.S. decided to attack Iran. Queen in Check.

 

[Darthphere]

Russia, I shouldve known.

 

[DV8]

I wonder what China thinks about all this . . . if China, Russia and Iran got together, we're pretty much fuacked

 

[raybia]

Russia, I shouldve known.

A leopard does not change its spots.

 

[Darthphere]

I wonder what China thinks about all this . . . if China, Russia and Iran got together, we're pretty much fuacked

Probably.


"And Iran, Iran so far away, I couldnt get away."

 

[raybia]

I wonder what China thinks about all this . . . if China, Russia and Iran got together, we're pretty much fuacked

Only if we continue to pursue taking out Iran.

Otherwise welcome to the Nuclear age Iran!

Lets see how quickly the U.S. begins kissing Iran's A** after they get nukes.

 

[sinewave]

Please point me to a source for that rhetoric. And not an 'opinion' column or some other such garbage. But a reputable news source. Thanks.

here's another article i found about an upcoming episode of 60 minutes where there's a story about a high-ranking cia agent who blasts bush for cherry-picking intelligence to make a case for war with iraq.

A Spy Speaks Out

April 21, 2006(CBS) A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.

The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence — which the administration chose to ignore.

Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.

When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited — but not for long.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources — when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he says. The "yellowcake story" refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.

Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president’s speeches.

In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn't stop it from making it into the president's State of the Union address a short time later.
"As a British report," says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. … This was a policy failure. … I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time," Drumheller tells Bradley.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml