US intelligence agencies lying about Iran?

[Coito ergo sum]

Better than loving death innit?

errr....yeah....but...who loves death? [backs away slowly...]

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

My cunning plan is for the US to blow up one of the Tankers running from Saudi - and blame it on the Iranians. Say it is suspected to be a mine, but it's unclear whether accidental or deliberate (that would sound plausible)........and then the US closes the Straits (on Health & Safety / Environmental protection grounds) and spend 6 months (or so) clearing the straits of mines. China would be pissed off that there oil got cut off (from Iran) - but they won't start shooting.

If any Tankers want to leave Iran they can do (maybe blow one up - just for fun!) - but anything entering the straits would be blocked, unless Iranian flagged (the Iranians don't have enough tankers).

Iran would economically bleed to death.

[Seth]

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.

Yup. And because Saddam worked hard and spent millions trying to convince everyone he was on the cusp of making nukes. And you still don't get the fact that at the time the invasion was ordered, nobody knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and all the intelligence we had said there were, and we knew that there were chemical weapons there even before that.

If the Chinese were unable to resist, you'd support the invasion of their land as well.

Only if that's the only way to put down the Communists. We had the chance in the late 40's, but we blew it in large part due to the treason and lies of the "China hands" Communist sympathizers in the State Department who lied about Chiang Kai-shek and supported the Communist Chinese in communications with Washington that lead to the US cutting off aid to the Kuomingtang, which played a large part in his defeat by the Communists.

I'd prefer to destroy them economically by cutting of all trade with China, but it's probably too late for that.

But if we could take out the Communist government and support an uprising without fomenting a nuclear exchange, I'd be in favor of it.

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

No, right makes right, and might enforces it. We're right, the Communists are wrong. It's just that simple, and the Communists need to be destroyed.

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

There's nothing morally subjective about it. Communism is an inherently and inescapably evil ideology that of necessity oppresses, tyrannizes and murders people wholesale, every single time it's attempted, and it needs to be destroyed so that all those individuals who have been enslaved to the collective and have no liberty or individual rights can enjoy the liberty and freedom they have a right to.

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?

If the shoe fits, wear it. I'm speaking of socialists generally.

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.

It's not an act. I am a know-it-all, and you're inferior to me in every possible way, including intellectually. Hadn't you figured that out yet? Worse for you, you don't even exist, you're just a figment of my imaginations because it is, after all, all about me.

[Seth]

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............

So, how come gasoline costs more now? Where's all that Iraqi oil we've been "stealing?" Haven't seen much of it at all, and what had appeared over here was bought at market price by distributors.

I doubt the US would be that singularly inefficient at stealing oil if that was its intention.

That's the interesting thing about Netwits who make claims about American imperialism, they can't point to a single example of imperialistic acts by the US. We send in our military to deal with a military situation, then we leave, and leave behind billions in US capital to rebuild the nation and make it sovereign again. If we were imperialists, we'd staying put after military operations were concluded (like the British did in many nations like India) and we'd be taking more in treasure and resources from those countries we invade than we spend on military operations. So far the balance is tipped rather severely in the other direction.

[Pappa]

And you still don't get the fact that at the time the invasion was ordered, nobody knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and all the intelligence we had said there were, and we knew that there were chemical weapons there even before that.

I think you're confusing intelligence with political spin. My overriding memory of the events was that the weapons inspectors weren't allowed, by us, to finish doing their job properly. Bush didn't need much evidence to get public support for going to war, and Blair faked/massaged/sexed-up the evidence to persuade both Parliament and the public that going to war was a necessity. There was no pressing danger, and no evidence of pressing danger. Regardless of whether or not you feel the war was eventually justified, it's pretty clear by now that the original justification given to us all was a load of bollocks.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I trust the Intelligence Community thoroughly. As much as my own family...

Is this "trust" as in "trust to be honest", or as in "trust to be competent"?

It's an important distinction.

[Svartalf]

I think he means "trust not to voluntarily fuck me over without direct orders from the prez, DHS sec or SecDef"

[Seth]

And you still don't get the fact that at the time the invasion was ordered, nobody knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and all the intelligence we had said there were, and we knew that there were chemical weapons there even before that.

I think you're confusing intelligence with political spin. My overriding memory of the events was that the weapons inspectors weren't allowed, by us, to finish doing their job properly.

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. The UN weapons inspectors were blocked, interfered with and lied to by Saddam and his people from the very beginning. There are satellite photos of lines of semi-trailers leaving the backs of factories as the UN weapons inspectors were being driven, quite literally, around Baghdad in circles until all the contraband had left the place to be inspected. You see, Saddam required the UN inspectors to SCHEDULE their visits to a particular facility well in advance, giving Saddam plenty of time to move any incriminating evidence before the inspectors were brought to the facility, and they were ALWAYS closely guarded and highly restricted in where they went and what they were allowed to see.

After 12 years of this sort of shell game, it was time to move. It was long PAST time to move. We should have moved the instant that Saddam violated the smallest single provision of the CEASE FIRE accord. I'll never forgive Bush Sr. for not nailing Saddam the first time, and for not going back in at the first opportunity caused by Saddam's violation of the accord.

Bush didn't need much evidence to get public support for going to war, and Blair faked/massaged/sexed-up the evidence to persuade both Parliament and the public that going to war was a necessity.

That's what the Kool Aid drinkers would have you believe, and you've bought it hook, line and sinker. Problem is, they are lying to you and you're lying in turn. You neither know or care to understand the facts in place at the time, which were sufficient to get our Congress to vote heavily in favor of invasion. Bush didn't need to cook up anything, Saddam gave us all the justification we ever needed and more, for more than a decade. The real question is why we waited so long.

There was no pressing danger, and no evidence of pressing danger.

...that you were aware of... Unfortunately for your argument, your knowledge and awareness of the evidence at the time was paltry and miniscule, whereas Bush's, Blair's and everyone else's knowledge was orders of magnitude better than yours, and they made the call based on what you and your propaganda indoctrinationists weren't and still aren't aware of.

Regardless of whether or not you feel the war was eventually justified, it's pretty clear by now that the original justification given to us all was a load of bollocks.

It's only clear to idiots who swallowed the leftist anti-war peacenik Kool Aid and don't have a fucking clue about the truth and don't want to know it because it conflicts with their precious anti-American, anti-Bush paradigm.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yup. And because Saddam worked hard and spent millions trying to convince everyone he was on the cusp of making nukes. And you still don't get the fact that at the time the invasion was ordered, nobody knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and all the intelligence we had said there were, and we knew that there were chemical weapons there even before that.

I see. You support violence based on speculation, then. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

Only if that's the only way to put down the Communists. We had the chance in the late 40's, but we blew it in large part due to the treason and lies of the "China hands" Communist sympathizers in the State Department who lied about Chiang Kai-shek and supported the Communist Chinese in communications with Washington that lead to the US cutting off aid to the Kuomingtang, which played a large part in his defeat by the Communists.

I'd prefer to destroy them economically by cutting of all trade with China, but it's probably too late for that.

But if we could take out the Communist government and support an uprising without fomenting a nuclear exchange, I'd be in favor of it.

I'm sure that would enhance our standing in the world, meddling in the internal affairs of another nation.

No, right makes right, and might enforces it. We're right, the Communists are wrong. It's just that simple, and the Communists need to be destroyed.

I missed the memo appointing that responsibility to us. Could you link, please?

There's nothing morally subjective about it. Communism is an inherently and inescapably evil ideology that of necessity oppresses, tyrannizes and murders people wholesale, every single time it's attempted, and it needs to be destroyed so that all those individuals who have been enslaved to the collective and have no liberty or individual rights can enjoy the liberty and freedom they have a right to.

You missed my point.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I'm speaking of socialists generally.

Then reserve your generalizations for a general commentary, rather than imputing motives or ideologies to me personally.

It's not an act. I am a know-it-all, and you're inferior to me in every possible way, including intellectually. Hadn't you figured that out yet? Worse for you, you don't even exist, you're just a figment of my imaginations because it is, after all, all about me.

Oh, I see now. Never mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

Deja vu all over again.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... DT20120203 Nuclear experts barred from Iran site - diplomats

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Po ... ch-America

Is Iran trying to develop a missile that could reach America?
An Iranian missile under construction, caught up in a mysterious blast in November, had a range of 6,000 miles, a senior Israeli official said Thursday in a speech outside Tel Aviv.

[Ian]

In fairness to Gawd (and he might very well crap himself over those words) and how much I embarrassed him in the summer of 2010 after he had convinced himself that Israel was going to bomb Iran within days, I now think it's possible that Israel will attempt something big within the next few months. Possibly before summertime. Right now, I'd give Israeli military action it a 50/50 chance of happening in 2012.

As for the US being involved with a strike, I'd give that no more than a 25% chance at best, and that includes the possibility of covert involvement in cooperation with Israel. It's possible, but just not too likely.

[Coito ergo sum]

And you still don't get the fact that at the time the invasion was ordered, nobody knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and all the intelligence we had said there were, and we knew that there were chemical weapons there even before that.

I think you're confusing intelligence with political spin. My overriding memory of the events was that the weapons inspectors weren't allowed, by us, to finish doing their job properly. Bush didn't need much evidence to get public support for going to war, and Blair faked/massaged/sexed-up the evidence to persuade both Parliament and the public that going to war was a necessity. There was no pressing danger, and no evidence of pressing danger. Regardless of whether or not you feel the war was eventually justified, it's pretty clear by now that the original justification given to us all was a load of bollocks.

That isn't correct. The weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq for wanting to look in the wrong places.

At the last minute, Iraq agreed to let the inspectors return, on condition that they wouldn't look in certain places.

I will tell you the instant I knew there were no WMD though. It was during Colin Powell's speech before the UN. Remember it? I do. He had all these images of buildings and trucks - aerial views. I'm sitting there going, "that's it?" I was like, "they better have more that they're not showing us, because if that's all they have, they haven't proved shit." I was like, they don't have it. They think he's got 'em, but they don't know for sure.

I never thought they had the rock-solid evidence of WMD -- but, I did figure they'd find them.

Nevertheless, for the reasons Hitchens espoused in "A Long Short War" and many of his writings, I think the war was long overdue. It's more like "it's about time we did what we should have done in the first place." Moreover, I really - truly - in my heart - can't figure out how so many people around here can support toppling dictators like Qaddafi based on silly accusations of "he might commit genocide" (with no evidence of anything remotely like it having occurred), but not support getting rid of Saddam Hussein who was far worse - and actually was - then currently - not 15 years before - killing thousands of Iraqis each year, torturing many, using rape as an instrument of the State, and all sorts of other atrocities -- current atrocities.

The Baathist party is FASCIST. It's history is fascist. It's originators were Nazi sympathizers, and it was modeled after totalitarian dictators that ran before - Hitler - Mussolini - etc. These are brutal regimes - Assad in Syria -- Hussein in Iraq until his demise -- and this isn't just to say "oh, we can agree he was a bad guy" -- these are fucking monstrous mass murderers that oppress their people for real -- not "pepper spray a hippie" oppression -- but fucking bad-ass torture you while you watch your wife and daughter getting raped by the secret police type torture and then sending pieces of you to any family members he condescends to let live type oppression.

Iran is a monstrous regime too - they are run by a motherfucker named Ahmadinejad who leaves a place at his dinner table for the "Mahdi" the returning savior of Shia Muslims. Right? This is the Mahdi that can't return until the Zionist state is obliterated. So, what he is doing is leaving a chair and plate available in case the Mahdi shows up. He's fucking nuts. He probably was one of the terrorists who kidnapped Americans in 1979 when they invaded our embassy in Tehran. His regime beats the shit out of women, and murders them in the streets for speaking out. The regime funds organizations i the middle east sworn to the obliteration of an ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE -- declaring genocide -- declaring it -- mushroom clouds on their flags type stuff.

A trumped up charge of "might commit genocide" was enough to take action in Libya, but for some reason, people don't see enough cause in Iran?

I really do not understand the peace movement. Iraq in the 1990s -- yes! Regime change! good! After 9/11 -- NO! No regime change in Iraq! -- Libya? Yes! Bomb the fuck out of it! Iran! No! Not another Iraq!

And, especially after - during the Iraq situation - all we heard, over and over again, was "why Iraq? Why not all the other murderous dictators in the world...?" Well, here is another murderous dictator. If it's murderous dictators you want destroyed to be consistent with the actions in Iraq, then here you go. Hussein, then Qadafi -- now Ahmadinejad -- and maybe next Assad -- or vice versa... looks like we're getting to them all, eventually.

[Seth]

Yup. And because Saddam worked hard and spent millions trying to convince everyone he was on the cusp of making nukes. And you still don't get the fact that at the time the invasion was ordered, nobody knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and all the intelligence we had said there were, and we knew that there were chemical weapons there even before that.

I see. You support violence based on speculation, then. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

Actionable intelligence =/= speculation.

Only if that's the only way to put down the Communists. We had the chance in the late 40's, but we blew it in large part due to the treason and lies of the "China hands" Communist sympathizers in the State Department who lied about Chiang Kai-shek and supported the Communist Chinese in communications with Washington that lead to the US cutting off aid to the Kuomingtang, which played a large part in his defeat by the Communists.

I'd prefer to destroy them economically by cutting of all trade with China, but it's probably too late for that.

But if we could take out the Communist government and support an uprising without fomenting a nuclear exchange, I'd be in favor of it.

I'm sure that would enhance our standing in the world, meddling in the internal affairs of another nation.

They do it to us, and have been doing it since the 40's, I don't see why we shouldn't return the favor.

No, right makes right, and might enforces it. We're right, the Communists are wrong. It's just that simple, and the Communists need to be destroyed.

I missed the memo appointing that responsibility to us. Could you link, please?

It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it, and nobody else is particularly interested, so we have to in order to protect our own liberty. You might want to go back to high school civics for that memo.

There's nothing morally subjective about it. Communism is an inherently and inescapably evil ideology that of necessity oppresses, tyrannizes and murders people wholesale, every single time it's attempted, and it needs to be destroyed so that all those individuals who have been enslaved to the collective and have no liberty or individual rights can enjoy the liberty and freedom they have a right to.

You missed my point.

No, I didn't, I just disagree with it. Rabid dogs need to be put down. So do Communists. It's a public health issue.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I'm speaking of socialists generally.

Then reserve your generalizations for a general commentary, rather than imputing motives or ideologies to me personally.

What, and change the way things are done here? I don't think so. Sauce, goose, gander.

It's not an act. I am a know-it-all, and you're inferior to me in every possible way, including intellectually. Hadn't you figured that out yet? Worse for you, you don't even exist, you're just a figment of my imaginations because it is, after all, all about me.

Oh, I see now. Never mind.

I doubt you do, really, no matter how hard you try.

[Coito ergo sum]

In fairness to Gawd (and he might very well crap himself over those words) and how much I embarrassed him in the summer of 2010 after he had convinced himself that Israel was going to bomb Iran within days, I now think it's possible that Israel will attempt something big within the next few months. Possibly before summertime. Right now, I'd give Israeli military action it a 50/50 chance of happening in 2012.

As for the US being involved with a strike, I'd give that no more than a 25% chance at best, and that includes the possibility of covert involvement in cooperation with Israel. It's possible, but just not too likely.

According to a very high level source at US Central Command at MacDill....watch Iran --- "stay tuned."

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...The US can't keep a deception like that under wraps; we leak information like a sieve...

...I now think it's possible that Israel will attempt something big within the next few months. Possibly before summertime...

I see what you mean