'US overstated Iran nuclear threat'

Kev_ps3

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1204/iran.html

Cant believe that there hasnt been a thread opened on this yet.

This is massive news. How can the US go to war with Iran after this?
Im sure they will make something up that the stupid public will buy.

Hobbes

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

This is massive news. How can the US go to war with Iran after this?
Im sure they will make something up that the stupid public will buy.

It will be about freeing the Iran population from their evil dictator, and not WMD.

donaghs

Probably stretching it too much if they attempted another 9/11 linkage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

InFront

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1204/iran.html

Cant believe that there hasnt been a thread opened on this yet.

This is massive news.

Afraid not, it would be massive news if the report found that Iran was a great or immediate threat (well, rightly so).

However, for those who like to screech every time Ahmadinejad's name is mentioned, or how he wants to blow Israel (then probably Dublin) off the map, this is far less exciting than the notion of a rabid nation state coming to get them. Personally.

SpAcEd OuT

The US report, a consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said Iran appeared 'less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005'.

It concluded that 'the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure (which) suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously'.

The assessment said US agencies had 'moderate confidence' that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

---

still seems like a threat to me

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The US report, a consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said Iran appeared 'less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005'.

It concluded that 'the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure (which) suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously'.

The assessment said US agencies had 'moderate confidence' that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

---

still seems like a threat to me

You were the one ready to go to war a few months ago based on rock solid information about Iran?

SpAcEd OuT

still am.

Its a fact that they now have the know how to build one [as admitted by the Pakistani scientist who was responsible for developing Pakistan's bomb] all they are doing is waiting for America to become complacent so that they can build one.



Apparently North Korea had stopped their ambitions to build Nuclear weapons after the American aid package.....

oh wait

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The US report, a consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said Iran appeared 'less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005'.

It concluded that 'the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure (which) suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously'.

The assessment said US agencies had 'moderate confidence' that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

---

still seems like a threat to me

Why not wait until closer to this time and they can get concrete intelligence that they are on the brink of creating one?

The US army is over-stretched as it is, no way they will attack Iran, fullscale, in the near future. Given all the lies that the administration touted about Iraq, Congress won't authorise any incursion anyway.

SpAcEd OuT

I think the idea of a nuclearly armed Iran will certainly make Congress think twice about that, Iran could have the ability to develop weapons withhin 24 months, pre emptive action should be taken now before its too late.

Besides the Iranian government should be taken out, it's been supplying terrorists who target civilians [Thats not US propaganda thats fact by the way] and is destabalizing the entire region.

I don't appreciate their constant threats to Israel either. If America are to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria then it can only mean good things for the region. The reason they are struggling right now in Afghanistan and Iraq is because Iran and Syria are supplying the militants. Iran and Syria have essentially engaged in acts of war against America and America should justly be able to retaliate with a full scale strike against these rogue states.

What would you prefer

to live under the Taliban/Sadaam Hussein/Opressive regime

or to live under the US government

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Besides the Iranian government should be taken out, it's been supplying terrorists who target civilians [Thats not US propaganda thats fact by the way] and is destabalizing the entire region.

And the United states hasn't?

What would you prefer

to live under the Taliban/Sadaam Hussein/Opressive regime

or to live under the US government

Neither. That isn't the choice we have to make, whatever the United States would like us to think.

Tipsy Mac

This helps bring the price of oil down, helps the US economy.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I think the idea of a nuclearly armed Iran will certainly make Congress think twice about that, Iran could have the ability to develop weapons withhin 24 months, pre emptive action should be taken now before its too late.

What sort of action are you talking about. Be specific.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Besides the Iranian government should be taken out, it's been supplying terrorists who target civilians [Thats not US propaganda thats fact by the way] and is destabalizing the entire region.

Hmm: Nicaragua, Vietnam, El Salvador, Iraq (early 1980's) and Afghanistan.

Ooh, let's not forget about Iran in late 70's; that worked a charm and has led to the situation we have today.

The US has plenty of experience in funding terrorists. Stop being a hypocrite.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I don't appreciate their constant threats to Israel either. If America are to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria then it can only mean good things for the region. The reason they are struggling right now in Afghanistan and Iraq is because Iran and Syria are supplying the militants. Iran and Syria have essentially engaged in acts of war against America and America should justly be able to retaliate with a full scale strike against these rogue states.

If the US do as you say it will be an unmitigated disaster, just like the two disasters that are currently occurring.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

What would you prefer

to live under the Taliban/Sadaam Hussein/Opressive regime

or to live under the US government

A ludicrous, preposterous and ridiculous question.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What sort of action are you talking about. Be specific.

Regime change be it by political [unlikely] or military means.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Hmm: Nicaragua, Vietnam, El Salvador, Iraq (early 1980's) and Afghanistan.

Ooh, let's not forget about Iran in late 70's; that worked a charm and has led to the situation we have today.

The US has plenty of experience in funding terrorists. Stop being a hypocrite.

All bets are off during the cold war.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

If the US do as you say it will be an unmitigated disaster, just like the two disasters that are currently occurring.

The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

An American-ized Democratic Middle East seems like a far safer middle east than the one currently in place.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

All bets are off during the cold war.



The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

An American-ized Democratic Middle East seems like a far safer middle east than the one currently in place.

Cold war, wtf?

I asked you to be specific. It is clear you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Are you trying to imply that US democracy as it currently stands, with two recently rigged presidential elections, is the pinnacle that "we" should strive to enforce on sovereign states? Stop making me laugh.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that US democracy as it currently stands, with two recently rigged presidential elections, is the pinnacle that "we" should strive to enforce on sovereign states? Stop making me laugh.

That has not been proved.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Cold war, wtf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

there you go.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

That has not been proved.

It has been proven everywhere, except in court, because it was not tried.

I could give you hundreds of links, to reputable sites/agencies, but I know that a blinkered individual like you would not read them, showing the interference in the electoral process in the US. Hell, even the international watchdog, that recently criticised the Russian elections, had serious misgivings about both elections.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

there you go.

You do realise that this ended almost twenty years ago?

Reagan is actually dead. There have been three presidents since he.

Dirk Gently

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

Over 40% (by far the biggest number) of foreign fighters in Iraq come from the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia actually. And the main reason they are disasters is not because of insurgents, it is because insurgency wasn't planned for. Iraq was always going to be a magnet for proxy warfare and the Americans complete failure to plan for it, disbanding the Iraqi army and corporate corruption during the re-building process is the reason it was a disaster. Annoucing Iraq as a stepping stone to take out the "Axis of evil" (lol) is hardly a constructive way of avoiding proxy warfare either. I'm assuming you don't care about the 100's of thousands who died horrible deaths and the millions who have been displaced and had their lives ruined so I didn't mention that as a reason why terrorising Iraq was a disaster.

The neocon project to privatise Iraq was the disaster and blaming the insurgents is like blaming vultures for picking away at a corpse. The neocons created and engineered through stupidity an environment for insurgency to take place. They sent out invitations and recruited insurgents by turning it into an ideological war (after their wmd lie was exposed), picking a fight with Islam and coining the phrase islamofascist. Like a big fight night on sky sports, they announced the clash of civilisations at the pre fight press conference. The neocons are the hi tec terrorists who invited other low tech terrorists to join their terror play ground. Bin Laden, the terrorist they groomed, trained and recruited into the CIA now supposedly turned on them and with the help of American stupidity, together they helped create an Al queda franchise to rival the growth of the mc Donalds franchise.

Obviously the intelligence community has learned their lesson from Iraq and has chosen not to publish and spin only what they are told by the neo con extremist government. They appear no longer willing to compile a report which supports war regardless of the real situation. Perhaps they see the neo-cons as a dead duck and no longer feel the need to selectively spin reports for them. Maybe they see it as their duty to protect the US from another disastrous adventure in the Middle East. Maybe they realise how isolated they are in the World and are wary of stretching themselves while Russia and China sit back ready to become the next super powers. What ever the reason it appears the neocon project for a new American centaury is a failure, less than a decade into its implementation and in fact it has rapidly fueled the demise of American dominance.

Manic Moran

kaiser sauze wrote: »

It has been proven everywhere, except in court, because it was not tried.

I could give you hundreds of links, to reputable sites/agencies.

I'll settle for a dozen.

The usual arguments over the unfairness of the elections usually revolve about voter disenfrachisement, voting by those not authorised to do so including dead persons (Or double-voting), and claims that had a proper recount been carried out the election would have gone the other way.

Nationwide, the transgressions have been generally balanced between the two factions (Indeed, the Congressional investigation after 2000 indicated more shennanigans by Democrats) and the media-sponsored recount after the Court said to forget it resulted in no change in the result.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll settle for a dozen.

The usual arguments over the unfairness of the elections usually revolve about voter disenfrachisement, voting by those not authorised to do so including dead persons (Or double-voting), and claims that had a proper recount been carried out the election would have gone the other way.

Nationwide, the transgressions have been generally balanced between the two factions (Indeed, the Congressional investigation after 2000 indicated more shennanigans by Democrats) and the media-sponsored recount after the Court said to forget it resulted in no change in the result.

NTM

And the question must be asked then: why was there so many disenfranchised voters? Interference, perhaps?

The Congressional investigation you refer to was a token committee setup by a Republican run Congress in collusion with the administration. Nothing more than a smokescreen, which threw up a few jibes to try and deflect the spotlight from the majority party's indiscretions.

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Regime change be it by political [unlikely] or military means.

Those who advocate military means are so rarely ever on the frontlines.

The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

The main reasons they are disasters is because of bad planning, bad execution of both wars. US troops are trained to kill and break stuff not peace keep. A large number of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

An American-ized Democratic Middle East seems like a far safer middle east than the one currently in place.

Nope the Middle East is a lot less safe than it was 6 or 7 years ago. Many, many more people are dying than 6 or 7 years ago. Extremism has sky-rocketed. The remote tiny chances of you dying in a terrorist attack have now increased not diminished.

The Neo Con era is practically dead anyway, their experiment failed miserably, at the cost of untold misery and death. Saddam couldn't even come close.

Kev_ps3

Iran could have the ability to develop weapons withhin 24 months, pre emptive action should be taken now before its too late.

What is your problem with Iran? I would love to get into that head of yours. Iran has done nothing to this counrty and you want to bomb it and kill thousands of its citizans.
You sound like a modern day NAZI.

purple'n'gold

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What is your problem with Iran? I would love to get into that head of yours. Iran has done nothing to this counrty and you want to bomb it and kill thousands of its citizans.
You sound like a modern day NAZI.

I wouldn’t worry too much about this character, I have read his posts on this subject and he is either a complete fool or he is taking the p1ss. I suspect the latter.

oscarBravo

The last two posts have earned infractions for personal abuse. The next person to do so gets a one-month ban.

moe_sizlak

clown bag wrote: »

Over 40% (by far the biggest number) of foreign fighters in Iraq come from the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia actually. And the main reason they are disasters is not because of insurgents, it is because insurgency wasn't planned for. Iraq was always going to be a magnet for proxy warfare and the Americans complete failure to plan for it, disbanding the Iraqi army and corporate corruption during the re-building process is the reason it was a disaster. Annoucing Iraq as a stepping stone to take out the "Axis of evil" (lol) is hardly a constructive way of avoiding proxy warfare either. I'm assuming you don't care about the 100's of thousands who died horrible deaths and the millions who have been displaced and had their lives ruined so I didn't mention that as a reason why terrorising Iraq was a disaster.

The neocon project to privatise Iraq was the disaster and blaming the insurgents is like blaming vultures for picking away at a corpse. The neocons created and engineered through stupidity an environment for insurgency to take place. They sent out invitations and recruited insurgents by turning it into an ideological war (after their wmd lie was exposed), picking a fight with Islam and coining the phrase islamofascist. Like a big fight night on sky sports, they announced the clash of civilisations at the pre fight press conference. The neocons are the hi tec terrorists who invited other low tech terrorists to join their terror play ground. Bin Laden, the terrorist they groomed, trained and recruited into the CIA now supposedly turned on them and with the help of American stupidity, together they helped create an Al queda franchise to rival the growth of the mc Donalds franchise.

Obviously the intelligence community has learned their lesson from Iraq and has chosen not to publish and spin only what they are told by the neo con extremist government. They appear no longer willing to compile a report which supports war regardless of the real situation. Perhaps they see the neo-cons as a dead duck and no longer feel the need to selectively spin reports for them. Maybe they see it as their duty to protect the US from another disastrous adventure in the Middle East. Maybe they realise how isolated they are in the World and are wary of stretching themselves while Russia and China sit back ready to become the next super powers. What ever the reason it appears the neocon project for a new American centaury is a failure, less than a decade into its implementation and in fact it has rapidly fueled the demise of American dominance.

extremly well written if i may say so

purple'n'gold

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last two posts have earned infractions for personal abuse. The next person to do so gets a one-month ban.

My apologies if I overstepped the mark, but by nature I find it difficult to hold my mouth when I read what I consider is absolute rubbish.

Kev_ps3

purplengold wrote: »

My apologies if I overstepped the mark, but by nature I find it difficult to hold my mouth when I read what I consider is absolute rubbish.

Likewise.

SpAcEd OuT

jonny72 wrote: »

Those who advocate military means are so rarely ever on the frontlines.

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done. I'm also sure those same soldiers would have no problem invading Iran seeing as they can see first hand the damage Iranian training and weapons is doing to civilians in Iraq everyday.

Iran is more or less directly responsible for supporting the intentional mass murdering of civilians and as such the government should not be allowed remain in power let alone have nuclear weapons.

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.

jonny72 wrote: »

The main reasons they are disasters is because of bad planning, bad execution of both wars. US troops are trained to kill and break stuff not peace keep. A large number of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

So tell me why British troops are struggling as well they have plenty of experience of peacekeeping from Northern Ireland the intensity of this insurgency is not caused from American mistakes [though I'm sure that plays a part] or from how the troops act but is from Iranian financial and military support[training] and yes a lot of these insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but where are they getting the vast majority of the arms and training........IRAN.

jonny72 wrote: »

Nope the Middle East is a lot less safe than it was 6 or 7 years ago. Many, many more people are dying than 6 or 7 years ago. Extremism has sky-rocketed. The remote tiny chances of you dying in a terrorist attack have now increased not diminished.

Once America is allowed to finish it's job we will see a much more stable Middle East. The Balkans was once a warzone until America came in and stabilized the region I don't see why the same won't happen with the Middle East.

SpAcEd OuT

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

You sound like a modern day NAZI.

You are aware that the whole idea of neoconservatism was started by a group of Jewish Scholars so your statement calling me a Nazi is ridiculous furthermore I fully support Israel so I am clearly not a nazi.

Maybe your unsure of what a nazi is
here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

And from your response it would seem you are not capable of debating the matter so if you don't want to argue the points then don't bother replying.

thank you

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And the question must be asked then: why was there so many disenfranchised voters? Interference, perhaps?

The Congressional investigation you refer to was a token committee setup by a Republican run Congress in collusion with the administration. Nothing more than a smokescreen, which threw up a few jibes to try and deflect the spotlight from the majority party's indiscretions.

In fairness there is no way you know that for certain at all.

Lets admit what this really is

Your uninformed theory of what happened.

Conspiracy theory forum for those kind of replies please.

oscarBravo

purplengold wrote: »

My apologies if I overstepped the mark, but by nature I find it difficult to hold my mouth when I read what I consider is absolute rubbish.

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Likewise.

Apologies appreciated. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with a robust rebuttal of the points presented. Just don't resort to namecalling.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

And from your response it would seem you are not capable of debating the matter...

The warning applies across the board. I would have thought that was clear.

Dirk Gently

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.

I think maybe you need to broaden your study beyond right wing revisionist propaganda of American participation, direction and support for such things. I'm unsure as to how genuine your posts here are. I know there are some people who actually think as you do but it's still hard to accept that people can genuinely believe what you claim to believe. Most supporters of extremist governments like the one in the US at least (wrongly) cite real politick as a justification for such crimes but you seem completely oblivious to any kind of intention at all on their behalf to do such things.

Manic Moran

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And the question must be asked then: why was there so many disenfranchised voters? Interference, perhaps?

Something like that. Most usually local officials affiliated with one party or another who are not particularly scrupulous about their morals.

As far as the original issue of Iran, can anyone give me a reason as to why we should not continue to pursue inspections and compliance? NEIs have been wrong before, and I can't see what harm they would do.

NTM

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

In fairness there is no way you know that for certain at all.

Lets admit what this really is

Your uninformed theory of what happened.

Conspiracy theory forum for those kind of replies please.

Are you seriously trying to imply, with this preposterous response, that your opinion is more informed than mine or that somehow yours is more truthful?

I counter that yours is misinformed, propaganda eating garbage and I echo the sentiments of the previous poster calling on you to broaden your thinking a little.

I think that all the reputable agencies, investigative reporters, civilian testimony & numerous FBI investigations say it enough for me to back up my claim.

I'm really beginning to think that you have no idea what you're talking about and/or you are taking these stances just for laugh. No other reason makes sense for me and, believe me, I'm a very open-minded person.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Something like that. Most usually local officials affiliated with one party or another who are not particularly scrupulous about their morals.

As far as the original issue of Iran, can anyone give me a reason as to why we should not continue to pursue inspections and compliance? NEIs have been wrong before, and I can't see what harm they would do.

NTM

No problem with inspections, but arranged through diplomatic channels only.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i think the Eu should try to inspect some of the Us's choicer military facilities... Far more danger of the Us arsenal being used to kill innocent people than the Iranian.

AngryHippie

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.




So tell me why British troops are struggling as well they have plenty of experience of peacekeeping from Northern Ireland the intensity of this insurgency is not caused from American mistakes [though I'm sure that plays a part] or from how the troops act but is from Iranian financial and military support[training] and yes a lot of these insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but where are they getting the vast majority of the arms and training........IRAN.

Okay, on your first paragraph :
See: Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile (pinochet), Iran (last Shah era), Iraq(sale of chemical & bio weapons, rumsfeld & co.), Afghanistan not to mention the V country & the use of Nuclear weapons against a civilian population centre (1945, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)
Don't suggest that these were acts of "war" they were intentional crimes against humanity, conducted against a civilian population, that the US used their media machine to demonize, in order to escape prosecution for their murderous acts

America has always sought to interfere in foreign politics and liberties, to suit their own anti-communist, zionist, capitalist, Oil Guzzling policies. I'm not saying that it isn't the most prudent course of action for a nation as messed up as theirs is, but the facts are all there. As regards middle east politics, the US not to covertly supported Saddam Hussein up until his invasion of Iran, (with US bought weapons), They then turned around and sold Iran the weapons to hold off Saddam, but instead of taking direct payment, forwarded the money to Nicaragua to finance a little revolution and bloodletting over there. These are documented facts. Get your head out of your Ar5e and stop defending them.

The neo-conservative administration in power at the moment, has managed to earn the resentment of the entire Islamic population of the world, most of the Arab population and most of the literate population of Europe. This was accomplished through their ridiculous "war on terror", rendition, heavy handed tactics and complete lack of understanding of their so-called enemy.

As for Britain, as a former colonial power in the middle east, and the prime initiators of the national divisions that have made the region an absolute pressure cooker since world war 1, They were bound to struggle in their campaign, but it is important to note that the areas under their command in Basra and Fallujah were some of the quieter and least violent in the early stages of the insurgency, while the yanks were black bagging suspects and kicking down doors, the British kept their patrols orderly and behaved as they had learned to from previous experience in the region. Peacekeeping in Ireland was a totally different kettle of fish, 50% of the population there supported a British military presence, They all spoke the same language, The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, and other various associations of militant republicans were nowhere near as well funded or commited as the Islamic Jihadis are. Just how many Suicide attacks were performed by republicans ???? Discounting Hunger strike, as it is a peaceful protest, I cannot remember a single one, SO without getting off topic, it is nothing short of pointless to even compare the two. The only similarity was that the conflicts both arose from lines drawn around the same time, by the same group of people, They have been dealing with the consequences ever since, We in Ireland have been lucky enough to be able to reconcile the minor differences between the two communities.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done. I'm also sure those same soldiers would have no problem invading Iran seeing as they can see first hand the damage Iranian training and weapons is doing to civilians in Iraq everyday.

Iran is more or less directly responsible for supporting the intentional mass murdering of civilians and as such the government should not be allowed remain in power let alone have nuclear weapons.

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.




So tell me why British troops are struggling as well they have plenty of experience of peacekeeping from Northern Ireland the intensity of this insurgency is not caused from American mistakes [though I'm sure that plays a part] or from how the troops act but is from Iranian financial and military support[training] and yes a lot of these insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but where are they getting the vast majority of the arms and training........IRAN.




Once America is allowed to finish it's job we will see a much more stable Middle East. The Balkans was once a warzone until America came in and stabilized the region I don't see why the same won't happen with the Middle East.

I would be of the opinion that most US troops simply wish to come home. Post me a link to a reputable poll (NOT a Fox one) that backs up your claim that they wish to move onto Iran from Iraq? You seem to have glossed over the fact, stated in this thread, that over half of the supplies/manpower for the destabilising forces come from countries other than Iran, so your argument to invade Iran falls on its own sword immediately. I argue, using your logic, that they should prioritise Saudi Arabia as their next target. I'll also answer why they won't do that: Saudi oil reserves. The main reason they want to get into Iran, and the underlying reason they went into Iraq. See the pattern?

What about the US use of agent orange in Central America? Was that not mass murder to you? Any answer other than 'yes' shows you do not have a grasp of US foreign policy history.

A lot of the forces you refer to are untrained men, so it does not cost as much as you imply. It can be done with any of the manpower coming in from other countries. It is funny how you continue harping on about Iran as the major supplier of all things evil, they've barely enough money in the country to feed their own people, let alone wage a silent, guerilla war on US troops. In addition, Senators in the US' Congress defence oversight committee have gone on record saying that they have yet to see concrete evidence of Iranian involvement. It's hyped up rhetoric from Perino. Lastly, the British troops are not struggling. There is relative quiet in Basra, but the reason for that is that the target for the Sunni and Sh'ia populations is the capital. I also want to emphasise that I refer to the indigenous populations.

How many more innocent people have to die in order to allow the US to achieve your stated goal?

Oh, and the US did not stabilise the Balkan region, the UN did. :o

AngryHippie

"Ladies and gentlemen,
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society, And we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.
On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine, that combines military, diplomatic, Intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations, its preparations are concealed, not published, Its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed, that is why the Athenian lawmaker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, confident that with your help man will be what was born to be,
Free and independent."

John F Kennedy

Have a think about that, The man was assasinated by who knows for some unknown reason within a month of that speech. If you're fond of conspiracy, It'll blow you away, If you just read it, You'll clearly see the situation he desribed has undfolded with a tragic and tedious inevitability

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wasn't he talking about communists?

kaiser sauze

AngryHippie wrote: »

Okay, on your first paragraph :
See: Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile (pinochet), Iran (last Shah era), Iraq(sale of chemical & bio weapons, rumsfeld & co.), Afghanistan not to mention the V country & the use of Nuclear weapons against a civilian population centre (1945, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)
Don't suggest that these were acts of "war" they were intentional crimes against humanity, conducted against a civilian population, that the US used their media machine to demonize, in order to escape prosecution for their murderous acts

America has always sought to interfere in foreign politics and liberties, to suit their own anti-communist, zionist, capitalist, Oil Guzzling policies. I'm not saying that it isn't the most prudent course of action for a nation as messed up as theirs is, but the facts are all there. As regards middle east politics, the US not to covertly supported Saddam Hussein up until his invasion of Iran, (with US bought weapons), They then turned around and sold Iran the weapons to hold off Saddam, but instead of taking direct payment, forwarded the money to Nicaragua to finance a little revolution and bloodletting over there. These are documented facts. Get your head out of your Ar5e and stop defending them.

The neo-conservative administration in power at the moment, has managed to earn the resentment of the entire Islamic population of the world, most of the Arab population and most of the literate population of Europe. This was accomplished through their ridiculous "war on terror", rendition, heavy handed tactics and complete lack of understanding of their so-called enemy.

As for Britain, as a former colonial power in the middle east, and the prime initiators of the national divisions that have made the region an absolute pressure cooker since world war 1, They were bound to struggle in their campaign, but it is important to note that the areas under their command in Basra and Fallujah were some of the quieter and least violent in the early stages of the insurgency, while the yanks were black bagging suspects and kicking down doors, the British kept their patrols orderly and behaved as they had learned to from previous experience in the region. Peacekeeping in Ireland was a totally different kettle of fish, 50% of the population there supported a British military presence, They all spoke the same language, The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, and other various associations of militant republicans were nowhere near as well funded or commited as the Islamic Jihadis are. Just how many Suicide attacks were performed by republicans ???? Discounting Hunger strike, as it is a peaceful protest, I cannot remember a single one, SO without getting off topic, it is nothing short of pointless to even compare the two. The only similarity was that the conflicts both arose from lines drawn around the same time, by the same group of people, They have been dealing with the consequences ever since, We in Ireland have been lucky enough to be able to reconcile the minor differences between the two communities.

It is reassuring to note that there are people thinking, at exactly the same time, the exact same things and wording them in their own way that actually ends up saying much the same thing. I specifically refer to how both of us cross our posts and point out to SpacedOut that Basra is termed by both of us {I corrected my tired mis-spelling!} "quiet".

I also thank you for the detailed accounts of some of the more major, but innumerable, civilian transgressions that the US has engineered/performed over the decades. I decided to point out only the one; very poignant due to the abject poverty of the people it was used to silence.

Dirk Gently

The report itself. (pdf format)

NIE: Iran report

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that most US troops simply wish to come home.

I would be of the opinion that both of you are deciding what you want US soldiers to be feeling / thinking, and that neither of you have access to any sort of reliable, unbiased information regarding the feelings of the troop corps in general.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but seriously....it helps neither of your cases to be arguing what you think these people are thinking.

Anyone can make **** up. The convincing arguments are made by those who can stick to what is known. Ironically, this is why its a bad idea to even consider supporting the notion of an invasion of Iran.

When BushCo wanted to invade Iraq, they offered reason after reason, based on "hard evidence" that turned out to be either overstated, misinterpreted, or flat-out made up. Finally, they went with what amounts to the same logic that SpAcEd OuT is offering here....Saddam is a very bad man and deserves to be taken out of power.

If that was a good enough reason, then the whole issue of nuclear weapons would never have even made it onto the radar. That it did, and was heartily overstated and embraced by BushCo and their ideologues shows that they fundamentally understand that the argument SpAcEd OuT is offering - that Iran is run by very very bad men who deserve to be taken out of power - is insufficient. That's why it was never the primary reason in Iraq...until as much paranoia, hatred and fear as possible had been stoked up amongst the US populace so that they were gung ho to quickly follow on the "success" of the Afghanistan war.

It might be sufficient if we allow the same pattern as happened with Iraq to continue. Nuclear threat will be replaced with allegations of WMD usage in the Iran-Iraq war. Ties with 911 will be hinted at. And so on and so forth, until one day its all summed up into the notion that "Iran is run by very very bad men, so its ok to invade".

What seems to be overlooked here, however, is that this time things really are different. When going into Iraq, the US could point to Afghanistan and claim it to be the most comprehensively successful and cost-effective war ever waged. This was used as the shield against all criticism that going into Iraq was dumb because there was no plan to win the peace. No-one doubted the US could win the war....but the peace was a problem which Afghanistan was the response to.

Now, 4 years later, Afghanistan is no longer a shining example of how to do it right. Iraq is a shining example of how to do it wrong. The "war bill" runs to hundreds of billions already spent (and estimated trillions in total)...and for what?

Invading Iran on the "bad bad people" argument....not gonna happen...at least not yet.

But the pattern..

Look at what we were told...

Iran must be stopped because they're lying to us and are secretely building nukes.

Then we get the report...

Iran are not lying to us and have stopped their nuclear weapons program just like they said they were.

The response?

Iran can't be trusted. They lie and make things up. We might need to bomb them anyway...but not until we find a new pretext.

And why can't we trust Iran? Why...because they told us the truth, while those saying they can't be trusted made **** up.

It makes perfect sense. Iran tell the truth - they're untrustworthy. US government make **** up....they should be listened to. Why? Because we don't want to live in fear of being ruled by some foreign culture. Because we love McDonalds, Ben & Jerrys, and all that other All-American goodness. Because Americanism is an intrinsic part of our Irish way of life.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that both of you are deciding what you want US soldiers to be feeling / thinking, and that neither of you have access to any sort of reliable, unbiased information regarding the feelings of the troop corps in general.

No reason that both cannot be correct.

There's little doubt that the troops, and the Army as an institution want out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity, but I have also little doubt that the vast majority want to do so only when the situation feasibly allows it. I was still in my previous unit when it received its marching orders for another tour next year, and I would certainly not call the overall attitude a negative one. More of a resigned "OK, let's knuckle down and git 'r done."

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

No reason that both cannot be correct.

And equally no reason both cannot be wrong.

Both posters are basically saying "I have no solid information, but here's what I am going to claim their mindset is". That's my objection. kaizer, at least, made it clear that he was offering opinion. SpAcEd offered his opinion as fact.

I was still in my previous unit when it received its marching orders for another tour next year, and I would certainly not call the overall attitude a negative one. More of a resigned "OK, let's knuckle down and git 'r done."

Assuming that your personal outlook is typical of a US soldier...would you describe that as being "happy to be rebuilding Iraq" as SpAcEd OuT did?

SpAcEd OuT

AngryHippie wrote: »

"Ladies and gentlemen,
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society, And we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.
On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine, that combines military, diplomatic, Intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations, its preparations are concealed, not published, Its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed, that is why the Athenian lawmaker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, confident that with your help man will be what was born to be,
Free and independent."

John F Kennedy

Have a think about that, The man was assasinated by who knows for some unknown reason within a month of that speech. If you're fond of conspiracy, It'll blow you away, If you just read it, You'll clearly see the situation he desribed has undfolded with a tragic and tedious inevitability

He was talking about communist spy networks in America


Please no more conspiracy ****e take your fantasys to the conspiracy forum.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to imply, with this preposterous response, that your opinion is more informed than mine or that somehow yours is more truthful?

I counter that yours is misinformed, propaganda eating garbage and I echo the sentiments of the previous poster calling on you to broaden your thinking a little.

I think that all the reputable agencies, investigative reporters, civilian testimony & numerous FBI investigations say it enough for me to back up my claim.

I'm really beginning to think that you have no idea what you're talking about and/or you are taking these stances just for laugh. No other reason makes sense for me and, believe me, I'm a very open-minded person.

Has anything ever been proved from all of this.....


No.

Therefore you cannot state as fact that the elections were rigged if they were, all of these investigative organisations [and there were independent ones as well] would have stated the elections were rigged following their investigation. None of them stated the elections were rigged and as such your opinion on the matter is little more than a conspiracy theory.

SpAcEd OuT

AngryHippie wrote: »

Okay, on your first paragraph :
See: Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile (pinochet), Iran (last Shah era)

They at the time of support had no idea that these leaders and groups were going to do what they did. They never intentionally said ''hey these guys are going to mass murder people lets back them''. As I said America has made mistakes in choosing who they have backed in the past this however is different from Iran who are supplying training and weapons to groups THEY KNOW are involved is the mass murdering of civilian populations.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Iraq(sale of chemical & bio weapons, rumsfeld & co.),

To use in conventional warfare not against civilian populations.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Afghanistan

To use in conventional warfare against Russia

AngryHippie wrote: »

not to mention the V country & the use of Nuclear weapons against a civilian population centre (1945, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)

Firstly do you even know how many millions upon millions of lives were saved by this act. Japan had no intention of surrendering and for those who say Japan was about to surrender had no airforce etc. BULL**** the Japanese people had no intention of surrendering as they didn't want to lose honour the nuclear bombing gave the emperor the excuse to surrender.

Secondly this was WW2 era. bombing civilian cities was a tatic employed by people on every side of the war. During that time it was a winning at all costs mentality. It wasn't a nice time to be living in but those were the times.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Don't suggest that these were acts of "war" they were intentional crimes against humanity, conducted against a civilian population,
that the US used their media machine to demonize, in order to escape prosecution for their murderous acts

...Yeah... Japan during the 40s.... good country... It wasn't like it was involved in genocide or anything.

AngryHippie wrote: »

America has always sought to interfere in foreign politics and liberties, to suit their own anti-communist, zionist, capitalist, Oil Guzzling policies.

You make it sound like being anti-communist, have a strong zionist community[Are you racist], being captalist and using oil are something to be ashamed of which is ridiculous. In fact Ireland ticks all the boxes apart from having a large jewish population [which there is nothing wrong with by the way]

Now

Oil Guzzling Policies - Nope not true OPEC owns most of the oil not America even if they invade a country they don't own the oil so the theory that they are invading countries to take all their oil is simply false, just because you read it on indymedia doesn't make it true

Captalist/Anti-Communist - In fairness that was during the cold war when the domino theory was in effect. They were effectively fighting a war against Russia except never directly. And I think we will all agree that a captalist society is a better one to live under than a communist society [see South Korea/North Korea, Western Germany/Eastern Germany etc.]

AngryHippie wrote: »

As for Britain, as a former colonial power in the middle east, and the prime initiators of the national divisions that have made the region an absolute pressure cooker since world war 1, They were bound to struggle in their campaign, but it is important to note that the areas under their command in Basra and Fallujah were some of the quieter and least violent in the early stages of the insurgency, while the yanks were black bagging suspects and kicking down doors, the British kept their patrols orderly and behaved as they had learned to from previous experience in the region. Peacekeeping in Ireland was a totally different kettle of fish, 50% of the population there supported a British military presence, They all spoke the same language, The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, and other various associations of militant republicans were nowhere near as well funded or commited as the Islamic Jihadis are. Just how many Suicide attacks were performed by republicans ???? Discounting Hunger strike, as it is a peaceful protest, I cannot remember a single one, SO without getting off topic, it is nothing short of pointless to even compare the two. The only similarity was that the conflicts both arose from lines drawn around the same time, by the same group of people, They have been dealing with the consequences ever since, We in Ireland have been lucky enough to be able to reconcile the minor differences between the two communities.

Britain got the quieter regions to begin with yet still Basra is a hostile region today.

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done.

Actually there was a poll of soldiers and %70 want out of there yesterday.

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Iran is more or less directly responsible for supporting the intentional mass murdering of civilians and as such the government should not be allowed remain in power let alone have nuclear weapons.

There is no evidence of this.

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.

Before Fallujah all males of a certain age were not allowed to leave and when the US military entered the city the rules of engagement were everyone was a militant.

Once America is allowed to finish it's job we will see a much more stable Middle East.

Saddam's Iraq is much more stable and the vast majority of Iraqis were better off then. No one wants the US occupying their country.
The Middle East is much more unstable since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and there is no reason to think it will get better before it gets worse.