In Defense of Iran

[Oleg Bach]

Yeah....that's true. It would suck not knowing, even if he was a prick like me!

HEY you lowly bio-dad, what do you think of the right to bear arms for everyone- including nukes..If Joe has a nuke it should be all right for Billy Bonkers in Iran to have one- God...the Jews get one- the Russians have a few that were probably shipped via the black market to Iran ages ago-- I believe that they have always had a fully assembled one and they have been faking it...next will be the announcement that their enrichment process has reach fruition and they are ready to go.

[KeyStone]

Yeah and a big what ever....care to explain why this intelligence is credible and some other is not. If you cannot, I will assume you concede that you have no idea when inteligence is to be believed other than when it embarrasses the US.

So, in your opinion:

If we give any credibility to an admission a country or government makes, then we must accept everything they say at face value?

That's a curiously transparent form of obfuscation.

[DogOnPorch]

Feel free to report me then. I explained why I said what I did and I stand by it.

Don't forget this thread is about nuclear weapons and the possibility of their being used is a real possibility and maybe even a hoped for occasion if your steady stream of nuclear blasts with a lol sign-off are any indication.

I don't report people. Report yourself. Suggesting M.Dancer doesn't care for his family was the act of a coward.

[bloodyminded]

So you feel that you can pick and choose when and where US intelligence is to be believed or not?

How lucky you are....shame schultz didn't have your plastic options

I think you're being mischievous here. Consider:

When Intelligence is used to buttress a case for war, it must be looked at suspiciously; it's not that it's definitely wrong, or definitely politicized...it's only that suspicion, agnosticism, is warranted.

But when intelligence reports serve to indict the host country itself, there is far less reason for suspicion (unless we're to fantasize about double agents in the intelligence business). Because the United States has nothing politically to gain from its own intelligence assessments pointing the finger back at American culpability in war crimes.

It's impossible you don't recognize this immediately, which is why I suspect you're reaching a bit desperately here.

Consider: I could tell you that I once saved a child from a burning building, receiving terrible burns in the process;

Or I could tell you that I once helped set a fire to a building, and am therefore co-responsible.

Now, both could well be true, for all you know. But I not not only have nothing to gain from the second confession (in which case, you might say, "both could be false")....in fact, the second confession is one that actively makes me look bad. Politically, it would hurt me. There is no reason to make it up.

And that's in a vacuum...still believable, even in a vacuum. But when you factor in all the other terrible things that powerful countries get involved in, yes, even including the inherently Noble and Just USA...then self-indictments are almsot as good as gold.

Edited February 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

So, in your opinion:

If we give any credibility to an admission a country or government makes, then we must accept everything they say at face value?

That's a curiously transparent form of obfuscation.

No not at all. I just want to know what his criteria is for accepting that...say information gathered then has more weight than ...hmmm...information gathered about Iran now.

Myself, I think he feels that any intelligence that embarrasses the US is more accurate than Intel that shows iran (or iraq) is working on WMD.

[DogOnPorch]

No not at all. I just want to know what his criteria is for accepting that...say information gathered then has more weight than ...hmmm...information gathered about Iran now.

Myself, I think he feels that any intelligence that embarrasses the US is more accurate than Intel that shows iran (or iraq) is working on WMD.

You haven't heard? In spite of seeing SCUD missiles rain down during Gulf War I and Iraqi use of nerve gas on the battlefield, Iraq never had any of these WMDs. They looked under the bed, in the closet, in the kitchen...nuthin'.

[GostHacked]

You haven't heard? In spite of seeing SCUD missiles rain down during Gulf War I and Iraqi use of nerve gas on the battlefield, Iraq never had any of these WMDs. They looked under the bed, in the closet, in the kitchen...nuthin'.

Well, there is no denying that Iraq had those types of weapons. What the real question is did they have them during the time the weapons inspectors combed the Iraqi landscape looking for WMDs. I say no.

There were massive intelligence failures when it came to Iraq, that is quite obvious and clear. And we should keep this in mind when the rhetoric from the US and allies towards Iran could be just as much of an intelligence failure. Even BC says there should have been more deception towards Iraq and the WMD program. This tells me that it's all saber rattling and rallies the masses on both sides, but in the end does not accomplish anything.

And since they knew quite well, that Iraq did not have a chance to resurrect any weapons program after the first Gulf War and 10+ years of no fly zones and heavy sanctions. They knew it was going to be a steamroll into Baghdad. There was little to no resistance. Personally, I think people are going to take any rhetoric towards Iran with a grain of salt. It was the first multi-mass-media wars. All over the TV, papers, radio and the Internet as well. Propaganda ... sorry .. Public Relations.

I'll put 10 bucks on Iran getting the bomb without much of a hassle.

[eyeball]

No not at all. I just want to know what his criteria is for accepting that...say information gathered then has more weight than ...hmmm...information gathered about Iran now.

Myself, I think he feels that any intelligence that embarrasses the US is more accurate than Intel that shows iran (or iraq) is working on WMD.

You want to know what I really think Morris? I think a super-rogue is a much bigger threat to world peace than a rogue is on any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Its really not that complicated.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, there is no denying that Iraq had those types of weapons. What the real question is did they have them during the time the weapons inspectors combed the Iraqi landscape looking for WMDs. I say no.

There were massive intelligence failures when it came to Iraq, that is quite obvious and clear. And we should keep this in mind when the rhetoric from the US and allies towards Iran could be just as much of an intelligence failure. Even BC says there should have been more deception towards Iraq and the WMD program. This tells me that it's all saber rattling and rallies the masses on both sides, but in the end does not accomplish anything.

And since they knew quite well, that Iraq did not have a chance to resurrect any weapons program after the first Gulf War and 10+ years of no fly zones and heavy sanctions. They knew it was going to be a steamroll into Baghdad. There was little to no resistance. Personally, I think people are going to take any rhetoric towards Iran with a grain of salt. It was the first multi-mass-media wars. All over the TV, papers, radio and the Internet as well. Propaganda ... sorry .. Public Relations.

I'll put 10 bucks on Iran getting the bomb without much of a hassle.

It's the missing VX precursors that might come back to haunt us one day. Iraq is a big place and it could have been buried anywhere...or shipped to Syria which is the other rumor. That we didn't find it looking "under the bed" doesn't rule-out that Saddam and company didn't hide it well beyond our reach. They were not dumb-dumbs, after-all.

[bush_cheney2004]

....There were massive intelligence failures when it came to Iraq, that is quite obvious and clear. And we should keep this in mind when the rhetoric from the US and allies towards Iran could be just as much of an intelligence failure. Even BC says there should have been more deception towards Iraq and the WMD program. This tells me that it's all saber rattling and rallies the masses on both sides, but in the end does not accomplish anything.

Not sure what you mean by this....it accomplished the objective of regime change in Iraq, which is now an occupied state. Guess who lives next door?

[GostHacked]

It's the missing VX precursors that might come back to haunt us one day. Iraq is a big place and it could have been buried anywhere...or shipped to Syria which is the other rumor. That we didn't find it looking "under the bed" doesn't rule-out that Saddam and company didn't hide it well beyond our reach. They were not dumb-dumbs, after-all.

I don't buy that for a second. Before the war, Rummy and pals said they knew exactly where it was. North, west, east and south of Baghdad. The intelligence was solid they say . 'Nope no weapons here!' Says Bush laughingly at a dinner party with favoured guests. Yeah, we screwed up, but meh, we don't care anyways.

I am not even sure the US could afford another war effort.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't buy that for a second. Before the war, Rummy and pals said they knew exactly where it was. North, west, east and south of Baghdad. The intelligence was solid they say . 'Nope no weapons here!' Says Bush laughingly at a dinner party with favoured guests. Yeah, we screwed up, but meh, we don't care anyways.

I am not even sure the US could afford another war effort.

Give me 25 18-wheelers and unlimited government funding and I'll hide them somewhere in British Columbia.

Find them.

[M.Dancer]

There were massive intelligence failures when it came to Iraq.

Yes there were. Intelleigence is not black or white and rarely does it come with talking points. Operatives, agents and diplomatic staff send in a barrage of conflicting and widely divergent notes and it is up to the analysts to piece it together. Sometimes they get it wrong and rarely will they all agree. I have no doubt that if one person told Schultz that the Iraqi were using CW, another would have told him they couldn't be sure.

[M.Dancer]

You want to know what I really think Morris?

Not particularly.

[JB Globe]

First off, it isn't a US treaty, it was proposed by Ireland.

Only one nation that was a signatory acquired nuclear weapons. They are currently holding South Korea hostage, forestalling any military correction.

Regardless, the US has been a major proponent of halting the spread of nuclear weapons . . . Except when allied nations are developing them. This is why absolutely no one puts any stock in US claims that they are trying to halt the spread of the weapons for the betterment of society - people can clearly see that it's just a simple issue of maintaining US dominance. They can see that those nations that the US is not allies with that develop nukes don't get invaded.

[JB Globe]

Scenario expanded...Iran launches a mysterious 'scientific' satellite (they swear it is) that on occasion passes over Israel...until that one time it is de-orbited. Ka-whoomp!

Here's the thing - to nuke Israel you'd also have to nuke the Dome of the Rock, and several million Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and anyone else living close to Israel.

The Revolutionary guard is not going to kill an equal amount of Muslims and destroy the 3rd holiest site in Islam that dates from the time of Mohammed just to destroy Israel. They also realize that to nuke Israel would mean Iran would be destroyed.

I know Western media loves to portray the Iranian regime as frothing-at-the-mouth fanatics, but the fact is that they're simply a brutal regime that is moving away from a religious one towards a military junta.

[M.Dancer]

Regardless, the US has been a major proponent of halting the spread of nuclear weapons . . . <b>Except when allied nations are developing them. </b>

Nonsense. Both GB and France acquired nuclear weapons before the NPT and france did so without US help or approval.

[M.Dancer]

The Revolutionary guard is not going to kill an equal amount of Muslims and destroy the 3rd holiest site in Islam that dates from the time of Mohammed just to destroy Israel.

They have never had a problem killing muslims before...their tally is over 400,000

[bush_cheney2004]

Regardless, the US has been a major proponent of halting the spread of nuclear weapons . . . Except when allied nations are developing them.

Patently false....see South Africa.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/stumpf.htm

[KeyStone]

It's the missing VX precursors that might come back to haunt us one day. Iraq is a big place and it could have been buried anywhere...or shipped to Syria which is the other rumor. That we didn't find it looking "under the bed" doesn't rule-out that Saddam and company didn't hide it well beyond our reach. They were not dumb-dumbs, after-all.

Let me see if I understand this, properly.

Even though the US government has admitted that Iraq had no WMD, you remain unconvinced, still desperately clutching the fact that the inexistence of something can not be fully proven to prop up your faulty arguments.

You may remember when the US claimed that they needed to get the Iraqi scientists out of Iraq to interview them because they could not reveal the truth under fear of Saddam? Well, now Saddam is dead, his sons are dead, the Baath party is dismantled, and Iraq is under de facto US control. Do you not think it the least bit odd that not a single one of these scientists came forward with the proof? Do you not think it more than a bit odd that if Iraq had WMD that they would have allowed themselves to be conquered, and their leaders killed without using some of that WMD? What exactly are they saving it for? Finally, do you not think it odd, that given the demand for such knowledge, it seems certain that the person revealing such info to the US government would be massively rewarded - and yet not a single person has come forward with proof. Not one single f'ing person in all of Iraq is willing and able to show proof, despite the potential rewards?

Yet, you still refuse to admit that they were wrong about the WMD, and insist they might have shipped them to Syria or buried them really deep? Do I have that right? Are you truly that unwilling to admit that you were wrong?

[DogOnPorch]

Let me see if I understand this, properly.

Even though the US government has admitted that Iraq had no WMD, you remain unconvinced, still desperately clutching the fact that the inexistence of something can not be fully proven to prop up your faulty arguments.

You may remember when the US claimed that they needed to get the Iraqi scientists out of Iraq to interview them because they could not reveal the truth under fear of Saddam? Well, now Saddam is dead, his sons are dead, the Baath party is dismantled, and Iraq is under de facto US control. Do you not think it the least bit odd that not a single one of these scientists came forward with the proof? Do you not think it more than a bit odd that if Iraq had WMD that they would have allowed themselves to be conquered, and their leaders killed without using some of that WMD? What exactly are they saving it for? Finally, do you not think it odd, that given the demand for such knowledge, it seems certain that the person revealing such info to the US government would be massively rewarded - and yet not a single person has come forward with proof. Not one single f'ing person in all of Iraq is willing and able to show proof, despite the potential rewards?

Yet, you still refuse to admit that they were wrong about the WMD, and insist they might have shipped them to Syria or buried them really deep? Do I have that right? Are you truly that unwilling to admit that you were wrong?

Yawn...

Iraqi Mig-25 found buried in the sand.

http://www.militarypictures.info/d/467-3/mig-25.jpg

wtf is up with this forum? Suddenly we're back to 1997 re: posting??

[eyeball]

Yet, you still refuse to admit that they were wrong about the WMD, and insist they might have shipped them to Syria or buried them really deep? Do I have that right? Are you truly that unwilling to admit that you were wrong?

You're taking to someone who actually denied that the West allied with communists to defeat fascists in his desperation to point out... wait for it...the historical selectivity of people he disagrees with.

If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

[bloodyminded]

Yawn...

Iraqi Mig-25 found buried in the sand.

http://www.militarypictures.info/d/467-3/mig-25.jpg

wtf is up with this forum? Suddenly we're back to 1997 re: posting??

Migs are not WmDs.

[sharkman]

Migs are not WmDs.

Well here's some WMDs for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

[eyeball]

Well here's some WMDs for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

Assuming Georges Sada was right, and your own link provides evidence that he wasn't (see the Duelfer Report), whatever WMD's Saddam still might have had in his possession would have been leftovers from the stockpiles we provided him.

Of course the West suspected Saddam had WMD's, most of the filthy things came from the same filthy source as the suspicions.