US intelligence agencies lying about Iran?

[Ian]

...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

If I'm asked about April 6th, I'll deny everything...

[Atheist-Lite]

...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

If I'm asked about April 6th, I'll deny everything...

I'm not gonna mention 9th March. Nor am I gonna say who told me what or why.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actionable intelligence =/= speculation.

Incorrect intelligence ≠ rational justification.

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.

Wait, the Chinese are fomenting violent rebellion here in the US?

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.

Yeah, if you'd be so kind as to point out China's last threat to our liberties, I'd be deeply appreciative. Until then your argument isn't convincing.

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.

Actually, you did miss it ... but you prefer being obtuse to having insightful discussion, so I'm just going to toy with you some more. You amuse me.

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

Unfortunately for you, I don't do things that way. If you want to actually have a thoughtful exchange, the ball's in your court ... but you'll need to do more that sling generalizations in my general direction.

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

Well, your doubt is misplaced, but if you wish to continue fellating yourself, don't let me stop you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

You know when I realized it was a bunch of horseshit? When in the space of four months we got as many reasons for the invasion. They were clearly throwing as much shit at the wall and hoping to build a coalition of the gullible.

It absolutely amazes me that conservatives who express loudly their distrust of the government give it so much leeway when it comes to spending American blood on foreign adventures. It would be interesting to see how many supporters of that war have a DD214.

[Clinton Huxley]

Little Nicky Clegg now opining that Iran has a missile capable of hitting the UK. Another piece of the jigsaw in place

[Tyrannical]

Better than loving death innit?

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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Should we have a "They finally bombed the bastards" party?

[Atheist-Lite]

Remember what crumple said about gas?

[Seth]

Actionable intelligence =/= speculation.

Incorrect intelligence ≠ rational justification.

Errors in intelligence regarding hostile nations concealing things = normal.

Intelligence is never perfect. You go with what you have when the decision is made. Just because you think the intelligence was incorrect in hindsight doesn't mean that the actual experts on intelligence analysis were incorrect in their assessments in real time.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20, but it's also for armchair quarterbacks who are ignorant of the realities. Real experts and actual decision makers have to go with what they know when they know it, otherwise many people might die. That's something you are unwilling to acknowledge. If it had turned out to be true that Saddam had nukes and we had used your metric of perfection, it might be to late for hundreds of thousands of people.

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.

Wait, the Chinese are fomenting violent rebellion here in the US?

Yup. Trying to. And perpetrating cyber attacks. And spying and stealing our technology. You obviously haven't been paying attention very closely.

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.

Yeah, if you'd be so kind as to point out China's last threat to our liberties, I'd be deeply appreciative. Until then your argument isn't convincing.

Um...thermonuclear weapons, huge increases in military spending and equipment (paid for by us), cyber attacks on our infrastructure, espionage, currency manipulation, pretensions of global domination, etc.. You either haven't been paying attention at all or you're a Communist sympathizer spreading disinformation.

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.

Actually, you did miss it ... but you prefer being obtuse to having insightful discussion, so I'm just going to toy with you some more. You amuse me.

We'll see who toys with whom.

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

Unfortunately for you, I don't do things that way. If you want to actually have a thoughtful exchange, the ball's in your court ... but you'll need to do more that sling generalizations in my general direction.

You've indicated neither the intent nor the capacity for thoughtful exchanges so far, so the ball's in your court.

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

Well, your doubt is misplaced, but if you wish to continue fellating yourself, don't let me stop you.

You must be seeing yourself reflected in your monitor.

[Toontown]

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.

You know when I realized it was a bunch of horseshit? When in the space of four months we got as many reasons for the invasion. They were clearly throwing as much shit at the wall and hoping to build a coalition of the gullible.

It absolutely amazes me that conservatives who express loudly their distrust of the government give it so much leeway when it comes to spending American blood on foreign adventures. It would be interesting to see how many supporters of that war have a DD214.

And now lemme tell you what amazes me.

What amazes me is when people are unable to reason out that a regime which controls a fourth of earth's oil reserve can make or buy WMD almost at will. And when said regime has a history of making and using WMD on an industrial scale, it hardly matters whether said regime has WMD at the moment of invasion - particularly when said regime has had plenty of lead time to squirrel away or destroy whatever WMD it had.

The demonstrated capacity and propensity to make and use WMD existed. Grease some palms, get the already compromised sanctions lifted, and the murderous Hussein family is back in the saddle, riding hard. And after Saddam, the satanic Uday takes over.

Introduction To Plain Common Sense 101

[Thumpalumpacus]

Errors in intelligence regarding hostile nations concealing things = normal.

Intelligence is never perfect. You go with what you have when the decision is made. Just because you think the intelligence was incorrect in hindsight doesn't mean that the actual experts on intelligence analysis were incorrect in their assessments in real time.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20, but it's also for armchair quarterbacks who are ignorant of the realities. Real experts and actual decision makers have to go with what they know when they know it, otherwise many people might die. That's something you are unwilling to acknowledge. If it had turned out to be true that Saddam had nukes and we had used your metric of perfection, it might be to late for hundreds of thousands of people.

I was against the war in Iraq before it started based on the shifting reasons given to justify it. The fact that the Administration couldn't even decide why it wanted to go to war is powerful evidence that the desire dug up the justification.

Yup. Trying to. And perpetrating cyber attacks. And spying and stealing our technology. You obviously haven't been paying attention very closely.

And you obviously don't know international law, because those aren't acts of war.

Um...thermonuclear weapons, huge increases in military spending and equipment (paid for by us), cyber attacks on our infrastructure, espionage, currency manipulation, pretensions of global domination, etc.. You either haven't been paying attention at all or you're a Communist sympathizer spreading disinformation.

Apparently, you're unaware that they share a long border with Russia, and have sketchy relations with them; you're also unaware that they had a border war with their neighbor to the south, India, back in the 60s ... and the patch of land over which they fought is still disputed.

We'll see who toys with whom.

Egad! It's the dreaded "no u" gambit.

You've indicated neither the intent nor the capacity for thoughtful exchanges so far, so the ball's in your court.

Pearls, swine, etc etc. Your inability to see the obvious is your responsibility.

You must be seeing yourself reflected in your monitor.

"No u" again! Whatever am I going to do?

I think I'll clip my toenails.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And now lemme tell you what amazes me.

What amazes me is when people are unable to reason out that a regime which controls a fourth of earth's oil reserve can make or buy WMD almost at will. And when said regime has a history of making and using WMD on an industrial scale, it hardly matters whether said regime has WMD at the moment of invasion - particularly when said regime has had plenty of lead time to squirrel away or destroy whatever WMD it had.

The demonstrated capacity and propensity to make and use WMD existed. Grease some palms, get the already compromised sanctions lifted, and the murderous Hussein family is back in the saddle, riding hard. And after Saddam, the satanic Uday takes over.

Introduction To Plain Common Sense 101

How, exactly, has this war done anything other than delay the same possibilities you've delineated? What is in place to prevent another dictator from taking power, causing more WMDs to be built, and using them against one or the other minorities in that country?

Indeed, the war was a strategic blunder of the first order. Here's why:

1) It diverted resources away from Afghanistan, thus ensuring that that war would be greatly prolonged. In matters of strategy, the principle of "concentration of mass" is foremost for a reason. The Japanese have a proverb: He who chases two hares catches neither.

2) It united Iraqis against Americans, and drove the replacement government -- which we ourselves installed -- into the arms of our enemies in Iran. This hampers, and may perhaps completely negate, our ability to use balance-of-power politics between the two countries as we did in the 60s and 70s.

3) It has greatly weakened our military, for while it has given us the most combat-experienced force in the world, it has caused the running down of their equipment and infrastructure. The money that would have been spent on those matters is being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan propping up corrupt governments.

4) It destroyed the goodwill extended to us after 9/11, and made virtually every nation in the world distrust our motives, thus hamstringing our diplomacy.

You'll forgive me for remaining unconvinced.

[Seth]

Errors in intelligence regarding hostile nations concealing things = normal.

Intelligence is never perfect. You go with what you have when the decision is made. Just because you think the intelligence was incorrect in hindsight doesn't mean that the actual experts on intelligence analysis were incorrect in their assessments in real time.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20, but it's also for armchair quarterbacks who are ignorant of the realities. Real experts and actual decision makers have to go with what they know when they know it, otherwise many people might die. That's something you are unwilling to acknowledge. If it had turned out to be true that Saddam had nukes and we had used your metric of perfection, it might be to late for hundreds of thousands of people.

I was against the war in Iraq before it started based on the shifting reasons given to justify it. The fact that the Administration couldn't even decide why it wanted to go to war is powerful evidence that the desire dug up the justification.

They weren't "shifting" reasons, they were additive, brick by brick as the intelligence came in. First Sarin on the Kurds, then satellite images, on-the-ground intel, reports of Saddam's agents meeting with terrorists in France, discovery of thousands of anonymous bank accounts funded by Saddam and used to support international terrorists, then his belligerent acts in Kuwait, then his obstruction of UN inspectors, his creation of faux biowarfare facilities, his innuendo regarding nukes and so on and so on. Just because our leaders did not repeat the entire list of (mostly classified) information they had, and you did not, to satisfy your skepticism doesn't mean they didn't have valid and actionable intelligence. What the President told the press, and what the press chose to report and how they chose to report it have almost no connection to the reality of the intelligence and data available to our vast network of intelligence professionals in this and other countries upon which the President made his decisions.

Yup. Trying to. And perpetrating cyber attacks. And spying and stealing our technology. You obviously haven't been paying attention very closely.

And you obviously don't know international law, because those aren't acts of war.

Sure they are. The only question is whether we want to go to war based on those acts.

Um...thermonuclear weapons, huge increases in military spending and equipment (paid for by us), cyber attacks on our infrastructure, espionage, currency manipulation, pretensions of global domination, etc.. You either haven't been paying attention at all or you're a Communist sympathizer spreading disinformation.

Apparently, you're unaware that they share a long border with Russia, and have sketchy relations with them; you're also unaware that they had a border war with their neighbor to the south, India, back in the 60s ... and the patch of land over which they fought is still disputed.

Don't care. They are Communists and therefore they are automatically a danger to the planet and everyone on it, and the Communists among the Chinese need to be destroyed using whatever tactics manage it without destroying the rest of the planet.

[Seth]

And now lemme tell you what amazes me.

What amazes me is when people are unable to reason out that a regime which controls a fourth of earth's oil reserve can make or buy WMD almost at will. And when said regime has a history of making and using WMD on an industrial scale, it hardly matters whether said regime has WMD at the moment of invasion - particularly when said regime has had plenty of lead time to squirrel away or destroy whatever WMD it had.

The demonstrated capacity and propensity to make and use WMD existed. Grease some palms, get the already compromised sanctions lifted, and the murderous Hussein family is back in the saddle, riding hard. And after Saddam, the satanic Uday takes over.

Introduction To Plain Common Sense 101

How, exactly, has this war done anything other than delay the same possibilities you've delineated?

What's wrong with delay? Delay is good. Delay is necessary. Preventing another dictator bent on acquiring nukes from coming to power is why we STAYED there instead of just destroying Saddam and Iraq's infrastructure and walking away.

What is in place to prevent another dictator from taking power, causing more WMDs to be built, and using them against one or the other minorities in that country?

The US and other Coalition military of course. Along with the efforts to build a democratic nation friendly to our interests. May not always work, but if we have to go back and kill another megalomaniacal dictator to prevent him from acquiring and using WMDs, we will.

Indeed, the war was a strategic blunder of the first order. Here's why:

1) It diverted resources away from Afghanistan, thus ensuring that that war would be greatly prolonged. In matters of strategy, the principle of "concentration of mass" is foremost for a reason. The Japanese have a proverb: He who chases two hares catches neither.

He who has friendly military bases in the Middle East has a substantial leg up on controlling WMDs in neighboring countries. Iraq is nicely central to the region and it's to our strategic benefit to have friendly relations with them.

2) It united Iraqis against Americans, and drove the replacement government -- which we ourselves installed -- into the arms of our enemies in Iran. This hampers, and may perhaps completely negate, our ability to use balance-of-power politics between the two countries as we did in the 60s and 70s.

No it didn't. Most Iraqis like America and appreciate being freed from the tyranny of Saddam and his sons. Iraqis still hate Iranians.

3) It has greatly weakened our military, for while it has given us the most combat-experienced force in the world, it has caused the running down of their equipment and infrastructure. The money that would have been spent on those matters is being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan propping up corrupt governments.

4) It destroyed the goodwill extended to us after 9/11, and made virtually every nation in the world distrust our motives, thus hamstringing our diplomacy.

Nonsense and leftist anti-American claptrap. There's a reason that it was called a "coalition." That reason obviously escapes you. Europe knows which side of the bread its butter is on, and it's not in supporting madmen like Saddam.

You'll forgive me for remaining unconvinced.

I forgive you nothing. Your delusional revisionism and outright lies are just more leftist anti-American propaganda that demonstrate a gross ignorance of the details of international geopolitics and history.

You may believe what you like, but the truth has little entry into your ideological blindness.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They weren't "shifting" reasons, they were additive, brick by brick as the intelligence came in. First Sarin on the Kurds, then satellite images, on-the-ground intel, reports of Saddam's agents meeting with terrorists in France, discovery of thousands of anonymous bank accounts funded by Saddam and used to support international terrorists, then his belligerent acts in Kuwait, then his obstruction of UN inspectors, his creation of faux biowarfare facilities, his innuendo regarding nukes and so on and so on. Just because our leaders did not repeat the entire list of (mostly classified) information they had, and you did not, to satisfy your skepticism doesn't mean they didn't have valid and actionable intelligence. What the President told the press, and what the press chose to report and how they chose to report it have almost no connection to the reality of the intelligence and data available to our vast network of intelligence professionals in this and other countries upon which the President made his decisions.

What's this? A "Libertarian" trusting the government?

The fact is that the reasons were shifted as objections were raised. This "actionable intelligence" you keep bruiting about was wrong. It was wrong because the Administration made plain exactly what its expectations were regarding "evidence" and as a result negative indications weren't fed into the decision making process. Curveball was strongly suspected by personnel inside the CIA to be a plant, yet Bush and Powell waved his misinformation around, and ignored the skeptics inside the intelligence community.

Sure they are. The only question is whether we want to go to war based on those acts.

No, they're not:

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

It may have escaped your notice, but we're a UN member state, that is a lawful treaty we've entered, and under our own Constitution, that has the force of law in America.

Don't care. They are Communists and therefore they are automatically a danger to the planet and everyone on it, and the Communists among the Chinese need to be destroyed using whatever tactics manage it without destroying the rest of the planet.

I will never agree that destroying someone else is justified solely on the basis of differing political views. If and when they present open hostilities, I'll be glad to renew the oath I swore as a youth. Until then, so long as they leave us be, we ought not be killing them for simply accepting a different political system, no matter how repulsive I find it.

If the Chinese want freedom, let them buy it with their own blood. I reject interventionism in the absence of incipient danger, and you should too.