Target: Iran

[Black Dog]

US sets sights on 'threat' from Iran

US Vice President Dick Cheney said on Thursday that Iran was at the top of the administration's list of world trouble spots and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to eliminate any nuclear threat from Tehran.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Cheney said in an interview aired on MSNBC.

I see Bushco is wasting no time on getting their house in order for the next chapter in their campaign to make the world safe for oil...er "freedom".

The U.S. strategy seems to be:

1) Build up the Iranian "threat".

2) Publicly wash their hands of any Israeli actions undertaken in "pre-emptive self-defense" while undoubtedly working behind the scenes to coordinate such actions.

3) Following the inevitable Iranian retaliation, launch a full scale invasion of Iran.

Even if that's not the way it plays out, make no mistake: an invasion of Iran will take place within the next year or two.

[August1991]

Even if that's not the way it plays out, make no mistake: an invasion of Iran will take place within the next year or two.

Military invasion? Ain't gonna happen, BD.

OTOH, watch for the 30 Jan Iraqi election results in the south. While the media is talking about car bombs and violence in Baghdad, there is no mention of Basra.

The only other State where Shiites have gained control is Lebanon but there, they are under a Syrian thumb and in a Maronite bottle.

Many Iranians are looking at what happens in southern Iraq.

Also, Iranians are quick to point out that they are not Arab but rather Aryan. Iran is both western and eastern. At the moment, the eastern face is dominant.

Iran is a rich country with much potential. Many, many Iranians are tired of the dishonesty. But neither do they want an outside force changing things.

[I miss Reagan]

I wouldn't mind taking out Iran while we're in the neighbourhood . I have a feeling this time we'll use some surgical strikes to take out nuclear capabilities and the like.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Endless War! Endless War! We want endless war!!!!

[Black Dog]

Iran is a rich country with much potential. Many, many Iranians are tired of the dishonesty. But neither do they want an outside force changing things

Precisely. Sabre rattling and war plans will only serve to unite Iranians behind their leadership in the face of a common foe. So, if democratic reform was really the Bush admin's goal for the region, threats are the wrong way to go about it. But then, democratic reform is not the goal.

I have a feeling this time we'll use some surgical strikes to take out nuclear capabilities and the like.

Iran isn't stupid. You can bet their nuclear program is scattered, hidden and heavily fortified.

This analysis by GlobalSecurity.org highlights some of the uncertainties surrounding the air strike option.

of American and Israeli assessments of their confidence in their assessments of the completeness of their understanding of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It will be recalled that when the US contemplated striking China's nuclear infrastructure in mid-1964, prior to China's first nuclear test, their were doubts about the completeness of US intelligence. In fact, the US was surprised when China detonated a uranium bomb, since the US had overestimated the progress of China's plutonium program, and seriously underestimated the progress of China's uranium enrichment program.

Iran's partners -- North Korea and Pakistan -- present contrasting studies in clandestine facilities. It appears that US intelligence has incomplete intelligence concerning some aspects of North Korea's plutonium program [mainly relating to whether there are undetected reprocessing facilities], and almost complete ignorance of the whereabouts of the DPRK's uranium program. The missing facilities are presumably at hidden underground locations. It is generally believed that Pakistan's major nuclear material production facilities are above ground and reasonably well characterized.

Iran appears to have a complete copy of Pakistan's fissile material production complex -- uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, heavy water production, and a heavy water plutonium production reactor. Elements of these facilities have been hardened against attack, notably the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which has been buried under a thick layer of earth. All of these facilities are heavily defended by anti-aircraft missiles and guns.

One cannot exclude the possibility, however, that some or all of the visible nuclear weapons complex is simply a decoy, designed to draw attention. It is possible that Iran, like North Korea and unlike Pakistan, has buried nuclear weapons production capabilities that have escaped detection, and would continue in operation even if the visible facilities were destroyed. There are persistent rumors of such hidden facilities, but little in the way of circumstantial evidence to give credence to these rumors.

[I miss Reagan]

Iran isn't stupid. You can bet their nuclear program is scattered, hidden and heavily fortified.

This is why we already have special forces inside their borders. But wait, I think I better cut and save that comment for when all you lefties start saying they don't have any WMD's. The best are all the quotes from the UN, Clinton, Albright etc. claiming that Iraq had WMDs. Somehow it has become the sole claim of the Bush Admin.

[I miss Reagan]

Endless War!  Endless War!  We want endless war!!!!

You radical leftists are so violent.

[Black Dog]

There's no doubt Iran has a nuclear program. They've admitted as much, though they've denied they'r eusing it to develop weapons.. But whether that progtram has acheived any results (ie. actually building a bomb) is another story. We know they haven't tested a nuke. We also know that, even if they had, their ability to deliver one is extremely limited. They have no ICBM capability and limited local delivery. Above all, though, is the question of even if Iran does manage to develop a viable nuclear weapons program and the means to deliver it, would they?

This is why we already have special forces inside their borders. But wait, I think I better cut and save that comment for when all you lefties start saying they don't have any WMD's. The best are all the quotes from the UN, Clinton, Albright etc. claiming that Iraq had WMDs. Somehow it has become the sole claim of the Bush Admin.

They should have asked me. I could have told them Iraq had no WMD. Better yet, they should have listened to the UN inspection teams that destroyed 95% of Iraq's WMD capabilites. In any case, Clinton et al may have suspected or believed Iraq had WMDs. But Bush is the one who actually went to war on that false pretense.

[I miss Reagan]

I'm just kinda messing. Anyway here's some quotes.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Pretty incriminating comments... that are never reported by the press. Yet how many times do we view clips of Bush talking about WMD's.

[Black Dog]

Pretty incriminating comments... that are never reported by the press. Yet how many times do we view clips of Bush talking about WMD's.

Clinton could have believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, but he never went to war (notwithstanding a few illegal bombings) because of it. Bush did.

[I miss Reagan]

notwithstanding a few illegal bombings

You lefties are so opportunistic with your use of "illegal". The word works well when you talk about Iraq but never fits into a discussion about intervention in Kosovo or Afganistan for instance. Very duplicituous. Still, invading Iraq was sanctioned by resolution after resolution mandating Iraq disarm, disclose or suffer the consequences. Nevertheless, the law effectively ceases to exist when it is not enforced. The UN is a lame duck organization that really has no authority in the world any longer.

[Black Dog]

You lefties are so opportunistic with your use of "illegal". The word works well when you talk about Iraq but never fits into a discussion about intervention in Kosovo or Afganistan for instance.

Afghanistan wasn't ilelgal as it was consiodered an act of self-defense. Kosovo was illegal. Neither of which has anything to do with Iraq or Iran, which is the actual subject of this thread.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I miss Reagan,

Pretty incriminating comments... that are never reported by the press. Yet how many times do we view clips of Bush talking about WMD's.

Comments, by themselves, aren't incrimination. These are merely accusations. There is no doubt that Saddam once had, and used, WMDs. Now it seems, with the benefit of hindsight, Saddam did comply with the disarmament resolutions, and destroyed his WMDs. The US/UK simply called him a liar and invaded, only to be proven to be in the wrong.

You lefties are so opportunistic with your use of "illegal".

There are two ways to attack another country. One is an illegal action of aggression, the other a legal act of war. In Iraq, as well as the bombing of some sites in Sudan, were illegal because the right to self-defence requires proof of immediate and direct threat, (even if it is produced after the fact) and in these two cases, the USA failed miserably.

Iraq complied with resolution 1441, but the US told the UN weapons inspectors to 'get out of the way' before the deadline. They were going to invade, compliance or no compliance, WMDs or not.

[I miss Reagan]

Now it seems, with the benefit of hindsight, Saddam did comply with the disarmament resolutions, and destroyed his WMDs.

An arrogant assumption. Even if he did destroy his WMD's, being the kind hearted and compliant fellow that he is, part of the resolution was to disclose, to provide evidence or suffer the consequences. The most likely scenario is that the WMD's are in Syria and Iran.

And I still maintain:

The word works well when you talk about Iraq but never fits into a discussion about intervention in Kosovo or Afganistan for instance. Very duplicituous. Still, invading Iraq was sanctioned by resolution after resolution mandating Iraq disarm, disclose or suffer the consequences. Nevertheless, the law effectively ceases to exist when it is not enforced. The UN is a lame duck organization that really has no authority in the world any longer.

[Black Dog]

The most likely scenario is that the WMD's are in Syria and Iran.

Iran? You mean Saddam's arch nemesis? The country he spent 10 bloody years fighting? That Iran?

As for Syria, how exactly did this transfer of WMD escape the attention of America, which surely must have been aware of such a possibility.

No, the most likely explanation is also the simpilest: Iraq was disarmed after the first Gulf War. There were no WMD.

[I miss Reagan]

Iran? You mean Saddam's arch nemesis? The country he spent 10 bloody years fighting? That Iran?

Ya kinda like Japan or Germany arch nemesis' that became our allies. When will the left understand strategic alliances. My enemy's enemy is my friend. Remember WW2 we had a friend named Joseph Stalin?

No, the most likely explanation is also the simpilest: Iraq was disarmed after the first Gulf War. There were no WMD.

Are you kidding? He used WMD on his own people after Gulf War 1.

I'll side with Hillary on this one:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[Black Dog]

Ya kinda like Japan or Germany arch nemesis' that became our allies. When will the left understand strategic alliances. My enemy's enemy is my friend. Remember WW2 we had a friend named Joseph Stalin?

Except no such alliance existed between iran and Iraq,. You're talking rubbish.

Are you kidding? He used WMD on his own people after Gulf War 1.

I'll side with Hillary on this one:

Hilary is, quite frankly, full of crap. Even the Kay report showed no evidence of any WMD program. Yes, Saddam had the desire, but he did not have the means.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I miss Reagan,

When will the left understand strategic alliances. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

The left understands that 'strategic alliances', with dictators and despots, have been proven to be more harmful in the long run, time and time again. The theory of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is the mantra of the short-sighted, greedy fool.

[theloniusfleabag]

Funny, I just read an article yesterday about the USA bringing Israel into the equation over the threat Iran poses. Evidently, Iran is 'an enemy of Israel' and any power they have, or come to have, is a 'direct threat' to Israel. However, Israel views every country, including the USA, as a threat. Further, they sold tons of conventional weaponry to Iran, including anti-aircraft missiles that were once stationed around Israel's nuclear reactor! I am currently reading a fascinating book called "By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent (who was born in Edmonton, by the way) and the 'dirty tricks' of Israel are almost without parallel. Oddly enough, Canada is one of the countries that has been 'used' extensively, housing 'front companies' to facilitate Mossad agents throughout the world (Ostrovsky claims that over 60% of the Mossad's 'fronts' were based in Canada. He also claims to have seen a storage area with approx. 1000 stolen, unused Canadian passports, and was not surprised when nothing like this was reported in the media).

[I miss Reagan]

Dear I miss Reagan,

When will the left understand strategic alliances. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

The left understands that 'strategic alliances', with dictators and despots, have been proven to be more harmful in the long run, time and time again. The theory of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is the mantra of the short-sighted, greedy fool.

Short sighted, greedy fool? lol. That wasn't meant as a backhanded insult was it now.

The point of the comment was that strategic alliances exist, not their effectiveness. But feel free to prove your point anyway. BTW, you can address me with a simple IMR. The pretentious 'Dear' saluatation is getting a little annoying .

[Black Dog]

The point of the comment was that strategic alliances exist, not their effectiveness.

And you have yet to pony up any evidence of such an alliance between the secular, Sunni-Arab socialist Hussein and his long time foe, the theocratic, Shiite-Persian Iran.

Nor is there much indication of any coperation between Iraq and Syria. Syria sided with Iran during the Iran/Iraq war and the Syrian Ba'ath has what could be best described as an adversarial relationship with their Iraqi counterparts. While there was a slight thaw in relations during the late '90s, I've yet to see any evidence that's much more than heresay.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I miss Reagan,

BTW, you can address me with a simple IMR. The pretentious 'Dear' saluatation is getting a little annoying  .

I thank you for the allowance of the greeting change, but there are just to many anal-retentive reasons why I cannot change my greeting. I was raised to be polite, (not by beating, by repetition) and things such as; letter writing, proper forms of address, grammar (which I believe I am still failing!) and punctuation. I believe the last two listed are among August1991's pet peeves. Therefore, as I am very dumb, I can only choose to start a form of address with either 'To Whom it may Concern', or Dear (Sir/madam, or if I know exactly who I am addressing, their name).

The point of the comment was that strategic alliances exist, not their effectiveness.

It could easily be argued that 'the strategic alliance' gambit caused 9/11.

[I miss Reagan]

And you have yet to pony up any evidence of such an alliance between the secular, Sunni-Arab socialist Hussein and his long time foe, the theocratic, Shiite-Persian Iran.

BD, you have cleverly shifted the issue to whether Iran and Iraq could have an alliance. I merely suggested that a likely senerio, as to where the WMD's went, was that they went to Syria and Iran. Given Saddam's past, it's naive to think that he destroyed his weapons. Nevertheless here are a few links:

After talks in Tehran, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi, spoke of their willingness to leave behind the legacy of the conflict.

The ministers spoke of leaving the past behind

"Iran is seriously seeking to close this chapter which has lasted long years," Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted Foreign Minister Kharrazi as telling Mr Sabri.

And Mr Sabri "reiterated that his country would do its utmost to do away with the bitter record of the past relations between the two countries," IRNA said.

BBC Jan/02

United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused Iran and Syria of allowing militants to cross their borders into Iraq. BBC Feb/04

Mr. Rumsfeld, speaking Tuesday during a visit to Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., said, "We have no doubt that the money comes in from Syria and Iran and undoubtedly other countries as well." He also cited reports that a shoulder-launched, antiaircraft missile had been smuggled into Iraq from Iran.occupation watch sept/04

[Black Dog]

BD, you have cleverly shifted the issue to whether Iran and Iraq could have an alliance. I merely suggested that a likely senerio, as to where the WMD's went, was that they went to Syria and Iran. Given Saddam's past, it's naive to think that he destroyed his weapons.

But there's been no proof Saddam had WMD since the first inspections ended. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

I'll leave the final word on the subject to Charles Duelfer , who led the Iraq Survey Team in the WMD hunt until it ended lastmonth. His preliminary report (released in October) concluded that any chemical and biological weapons Iraq possessed had been destroyed in 1991, and no WMD program had even been reconstituted. It also found “no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991," which backs the International Atomic Energy Agency's report stating it had found no evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

I can understand why you and other Bush supporters are clinging to this myth: no one likes to be proved wrong or admit they've been had. But to keep banging on about WMD when the same people who were supposed to find them are saying they never existed is a little bit silly, don't you think?

As for your links, I've no doubt there are sympathetic Syrians and Iranians who are travelling to Iraq to fight the occupiers, much as Muslims once travelled to fight the Soviet's in Afghanistan. Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims are attacked, then it becomes obligatory for all Muslims to defend against the attack; to participate in jihad. These people may even be doing so with the tacit or explicit approval of the state. But that's not evidence of a formal prewar arraingement between Iraq and its neighbours, but a reflection of the culture of the area. Of course, Iran and Syria would also have a vested interest in ensuring the U.S. occupation is hindered as much as possible.

[WageSlave]

BD, you have cleverly shifted the issue to whether Iran and Iraq could have an alliance. I merely suggested that a likely senerio, as to where the WMD's went, was that they went to Syria and Iran. Given Saddam's past, it's naive to think that he destroyed his weapons.

Given US imperialism's past and thier recent history particularly in the middle east, it is beyond naive to think that any American military campaign in the middle east will make the west any safer.

The more unstability the Americans create, the longer these people will be trapped by ignorance.