US intelligence agencies lying about Iran?

[Coito ergo sum]

Do we really care what reason they come up with to go in and take the fuckin' oil?

The gas prices around my house indicate to me that our gubmint is decidedly incompetent at oil theft.

Euros be payin' four times that.

Mostly tax. Euros love taxes.

[Svartalf]

Better than loving death innit?

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Do we really care what reason they come up with to go in and take the fuckin' oil?

The gas prices around my house indicate to me that our gubmint is decidedly incompetent at oil theft.

Euros be payin' four times that.

Yeah, but for that we get "free" healthcare

[Seth]

In general ...No .

On this?

Could be setting up the atmosphere for a false flag to justify the heavy bombardment necessary to obliterate Iranian infrastructure sufficiently to put back nuke development for a decade or more?

Works for me... Let's get on with the bombardment.

[Seth]

I think we should sent Iran a whole bunch of nuclear bombs, carefully concealed in crates marked "Certified Virgins - 72 ea. - pull cord to open."

[Thumpalumpacus]

As a default, I don't trust the CIA. Simply because they report to Obama is no reason to assume that they're erporting the truth; the fact is that throughout its history the CIA has a documented history of lying to its masters in the executive branch.

That they might lie about Iran is clearly within the realm of possibility.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think we should sent Iran a whole bunch of nuclear bombs, carefully concealed in crates marked "Certified Virgins - pull cord to open."

That's a great idea. See to it personally that they are delivered correctly.

Make this happen, and may God be with you.

[Seth]

Surely the Obama Administration would be demanding solid evidence for these things? After all, the CIA and all the intelligence agencies work for Obama directly, and report to him.

I'm not sure the CIA work for anyone apart from the CIA ,on whether Iran is aiming to hurt the US I think maybe they feel If they keep saying this or that rogue state is planning something then they will be able to claim they were right whatever happens .

Like they did with WMD:s in Irak?

You mean like the hundreds of tons of Sarin-filled artillery shells Saddam shipped to Syria? You know the ones they used to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds? Or the bio-warfare trailers and nuke program that Saddam spent a lot of time and money trying to convince the rest of the world he had, and succeeded at? Those WMD's?

Yeah, pretty much like that.

[Robert_S]

Why the hell did the US not intervene when France was acquiring nuclear weapons? Very slack.

We were paid in wine and cheese.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or the bio-warfare trailers and nuke program that Saddam spent a lot of time and money trying to convince the rest of the world he had, and succeeded at? Those WMD's?

Yeah, pretty much like that.

My Uncle Louie's Winnebago had deadlier shit than what they found. When do we invade Texas?

[Seth]

Or the bio-warfare trailers and nuke program that Saddam spent a lot of time and money trying to convince the rest of the world he had, and succeeded at? Those WMD's?

Yeah, pretty much like that.

My Uncle Louie's Winnebago had deadlier shit than what they found. When do we invade Texas?

It doesn't matter what they found, the only things that matter are that Saddam brilliantly bluffed the rest of the civilized world, and it's leaders, into believing he was on the brink of building nukes...and we knew he had chemical weapons. And then he violated the UN cease-fire terms 14 times in 12 years. That alone was adequate justification for reinstituting hostilities, regardless of the WMD threat.

At the time the invasion was authorized, the best available intelligence supported the need to invade, to the extent that it convinced many world leaders, and the US Congress (including that anti-war hawk Hillary Clinton) of the necessity and justice of going back in.

What they found, or did not find later is of no consequence or interest whatsover.

When some crook yells "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you" while poking his finger at you through his hoodie, you're legally justified in shooting him, and you're not required to wait for him to produce the gun.

Rational inferences based on the best-available intelligence (which you're not privy to) justified the invasion fully.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or the bio-warfare trailers and nuke program that Saddam spent a lot of time and money trying to convince the rest of the world he had, and succeeded at? Those WMD's?

Yeah, pretty much like that.

My Uncle Louie's Winnebago had deadlier shit than what they found. When do we invade Texas?

It doesn't matter what they found, the only things that matter are that Saddam brilliantly bluffed the rest of the civilized world, and it's leaders, into believing he was on the brink of building nukes...and we knew he had chemical weapons. And then he violated the UN cease-fire terms 14 times in 12 years. That alone was adequate justification for reinstituting hostilities, regardless of the WMD threat.

At the time the invasion was authorized, the best available intelligence supported the need to invade, to the extent that it convinced many world leaders, and the US Congress (including that anti-war hawk Hillary Clinton) of the necessity and justice of going back in.

What they found, or did not find later is of no consequence or interest whatsover.

When some crook yells "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you" while poking his finger at you through his hoodie, you're legally justified in shooting him, and you're not required to wait for him to produce the gun.

Rational inferences based on the best-available intelligence (which you're not privy to) justified the invasion fully.

Let me know when you support the invasion of China. After all, they are a country with which we've fought two proxy-wars, they have WMDs, and they have hostile intentions towards an ally of ours as well.

Also, saying that the truth of the charges is irrelevant is pretty lame.

[Seth]

Or the bio-warfare trailers and nuke program that Saddam spent a lot of time and money trying to convince the rest of the world he had, and succeeded at? Those WMD's?

Yeah, pretty much like that.

My Uncle Louie's Winnebago had deadlier shit than what they found. When do we invade Texas?

It doesn't matter what they found, the only things that matter are that Saddam brilliantly bluffed the rest of the civilized world, and it's leaders, into believing he was on the brink of building nukes...and we knew he had chemical weapons. And then he violated the UN cease-fire terms 14 times in 12 years. That alone was adequate justification for reinstituting hostilities, regardless of the WMD threat.

At the time the invasion was authorized, the best available intelligence supported the need to invade, to the extent that it convinced many world leaders, and the US Congress (including that anti-war hawk Hillary Clinton) of the necessity and justice of going back in.

What they found, or did not find later is of no consequence or interest whatsover.

When some crook yells "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you" while poking his finger at you through his hoodie, you're legally justified in shooting him, and you're not required to wait for him to produce the gun.

Rational inferences based on the best-available intelligence (which you're not privy to) justified the invasion fully.

Let me know when you support the invasion of China. After all, they are a country with which we've fought two proxy-wars, they have WMDs, and they have hostile intentions towards an ally of ours as well.

I support the destruction of the Chinese Communist regime fully. Unfortunately, they have nukes, and bioweapons, and chemical weapons, and they are a formidable foe, which means that unlike Iraq, we cannot simply invade them without the threat of global thermonuclear war. The point of invading Iraq, and now Iran, is to PREVENT those rogue nations from obtaining nuclear weapons, so that they cannot make themselves immune from world political pressure.

If there were a way to destroy the Chinese Communist Central Committee and all the Maoists without destabilizing the rest of the world and triggering a nuclear holocaust, I'd gladly use it. In a heartbeat. Because Communists are a clear and present danger to everyone else on the planet.

Also, saying that the truth of the charges is irrelevant is pretty lame.

But there is no truth to the charges, that's the point. The "charges" presume, in hindsight, that the Coalition knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq and went in anyway, supposedly to steal Iraq's oil, which is not the case. We know for a fact that he had large stockpiles of Sarin-filled artillery and munitions because he used them on the Kurds. There was absolutely no question about this. Sarin is a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam was told after the first invasion, justified by his invasion of Kuwait, to turn in all his WMDs and allow UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not conducting biological and nuclear WMD research and development. He refused 14 times in 12 years to comply with the terms of the cease-fire agreement, which in and of itself was sufficient justification to go back in.

Before the invasion, nobody knew for certain what Saddam did or did not have, and the best intelligence we had indicated he did have WMDs, and was about to build nukes, and therefore it was necessary to act. Intelligence is never perfect, and you go to war with the army you have, and with the information you have. We had actionable intelligence and Saddam's intransigence and refusal to abide by the terms of the cease fire. Those facts justified the invasion. That Saddam was putting on a show doesn't change one bit the justification for going in based on the best intelligence available at the time.

It's easy to armchair quarterback and hindsight is always 20/20, but that doesn't change the facts of history, and when the decision was made, it was made after due and careful consideration and consultation with members of the Coalition, the UN and was based on the best available intelligence, most of which neither you nor the left-wing press were or are privy to, which makes your "analysis" of the situation based in nothing more or less than gross ignorance and propagandistic ideological blindness.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In the upshot, your reply can be summarized: it was okay for us to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs because they'd used them fifteen years previously against the Kurds, and were unable to reply in kind to us, unlike the Chinese. If the Chinese were unable to resist, you'd support the invasion of their land as well.

In other words, you're making a might-makes-right argument.

Are you sure you want to engage in such moral subjectivism?

eta: Also, as for your charge of "ideological blindness", what makes you think you know anything at all about my ideology, except perhaps for an overweening pride and/or appalling arrogance?

I don't know you from a can of paint, and for you to presume you know me is only evidence of your own willingness to act like a know-it-all.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I would have been more in favour of the Iraq war if the Govt had simply said "we are gonna kill shit loads of rag heads so we can knock a few bucks off the price of gas".

I doubt even the CIA were dumb enuf to beleive their own reports............