What's the deal with Iran?

[R.P.D rookie]

I just saw on the news Iran finally produced low grade nuclear power and is celebrating it's joining the nuclear countries. The U.S. along with the United Nations disapprove of Iran's production of nuclear power. Can someone enlighten me on this whole scenario? How much time would have to pass before Iran would be allowed to pursue nuclear power? Do you feel the nuclear power story is just a scam in order to produce nuclear grade weapons? I'm not too sure. The U.S. government strongly agrees that Iran has no right and there were rumors (just that rumors) that the U.S. was planning air strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. I believe the pentagon didn't outright say that but instead said something along the lines of other contingency plans were being formed.

Does it seem like the U.S. is interfering too much with the middle east? I mean no doubt there's some suspicious things going on but I mean it can't be one sided. All these people in the middle east can't hate America for no reason other than it's the cool thing to do. Discuss?

[GGL-steve]

Iran has stated they want weapons of mass destruction, they also support terrorism, and have stated they want to wipe Israel off the map, and have stated the holocaust never happened.

Thus this is creating a huge fiasco, if it was another country (one less radical) nobody would care.

We have had contigency plans for this for some time, and Israel has blown up nuclear plants in other arab countries before. If it comes down to it, we, Israel, or a european nation will go in and take out the plant.

The encriched uranium they are talking about is what's used to create nuclear weapons, as well as some power. So the fact that they went this route (instead of many others) points to a weapons program, which increases tensions.

And not everybody in the middle east hates America, we are on good terms with several nations.

[Orochi Jeebus]

it would seem that they saw this coming and decided to arm themselves
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2124982,00.html

why would iran need to wait 10 years to develop their own nukes when they can just buy them?

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14604.shtml
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000771.html

on iran's stance that there was no holocaust, i present the following study.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-lies-hoax-frauds-blackflagops-hoaxarchive.html

before you get your panties in a bunch and close the window, consider the source of the figures: almanacs. good luck finding a more reliable source.

[Demon Dash]

Snip
Holy fuck Jesus.....The avatar!

[GGL-steve]

You're like an ignortant version of AHVB, at least he can make a point.


why would iran need to wait 10 years to develop their own nukes when they can just buy them?


Same reason everybody wants them to join the nuclear club, and have complete control over your weapons. If you have to rely on another nation for your weapons, you can't count on them. Only an idiot thinks purchasing is more important then being able to manufacture them.


on iran's stance that there was no holocaust, i present the following study.

If you think the holocaust didn't happen and was made up, then you truly are stupid and ignorant individual and are the reason nobody takes radicals seriously.

You're also the reason why Bush and co get away with so much. Because as stupid as they are, there are even more stupid and more ignorant idiots backing up even more assinine theories, which makes Bush and co look sane.

[R.P.D rookie]

Holy fuck Jesus.....The avatar!



That bad huh? Where's that "Best avatars on SRK" thread when you need so I can get nominated.

[Demon Dash]

You know, he really needs an ear. He's got that whole Michael Jackson, chimpansee thing going on.

[m121akuma]

on iran's stance that there was no holocaust, i present the following study.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-lies-hoax-frauds-blackflagops-hoaxarchive.html

before you get your panties in a bunch and close the window, consider the source of the figures: almanacs. good luck finding a more reliable source.
I have family members who were killed in the Holocaust, and members of my synagogue who were survivors. Are they all liars? I had respect for you, even with your conspiracy theories, until now.

[Hokuto no Jeffro]

Yeah, I think the Holocaust happened... it's not like a few million Jews, Slavs, gypsies, and homosexuals just disappeared off the face of the earth. But the point is, POLITICAL THREADS ARE BAD. Just say no people.

[Mixah]

snip the bullshit

you do realize that you're the type of person that believes everything as SOON as you hear it, right?

the same way michael moore neglected to include the part when the senator actually says that he would send his family overseas to fight... you prolly thought that farenheit 9/11 was 100% true, and the part when the senator says whatever was a hoax (excuse me if im' wrong but im' sure all of you know exactly what im' talking about... haven't seen it in a while, so i'm not entirely sure on if he was a senator, stateman, whatever...)

[ninjabastard]

I think their should be a rule that everyone with the name orochi in front of another name should be dragged out into the street and shot.

[Mixah]

or shin...

omg, i'm going to put shin in front of my name cuz i can shoot two fireballs int he air, omgz0rz i'm soo top tier! w00t

[Alex]

After reading the facts presented by orochi, i now believe the numbers in the halocauste might not be as acurate as they can be, but i certainly dont believe that it never happened.

[AHVB]

First and foremost, the CIA has stated that Iran is conservatively 10 years from aquiring a nuclear weapon. And even so, who cares if Iran is in posession of WMD's? Most other developed nations have em. We have hundreds, if not thousands!

Why is holocaust denial an issue? It's amazing how holocaust denial is actually considered a crime now in some countries. This is ridiculous. I mean yes, i believe to that the holocaust happened, but to demonize someone who doesnt believe that the holocaust occured, or in this case someone who's asking for a thorough investigation of the events is completely absurd. It's just as retarted as calling someone anti-semitic for criticizing Israel.

[Mixah]

i agree with ahvb to some degree here.

the reason why holocaust denial is a big deal is because it's not like somebody denies the existance in god. while i've always thought the numbers were wrong, i do believe that it happened. there's concentration camps, there's hitler's own journals, there's people with numbers tattooed on their arms, and i've met people who have been in concentration camps. but to "demonize" a person for not believing in it is wrong, to some degree.. when the person simply says "i dont believe why it happened beacuse..." that's one thing... but when a person says "you can't possibly think it happened..." people will take that offensively, and likewise through cause and effect, offend them back. it's a balance of things, no?

one thing i WOULD like to know... none of the history teachers have ever been able to tell me this, so to be quite honest, i don't think any of you can based on fact, not theory...

did hitler ever actually kill a jew with his own hands? he ordered the camps, and ordered the execution of many, but did he ever actually pull the plug on somebody? a question i would like to know the answer to.

[GGL-steve]

i've said it a thousand times to this girl i know whos' a crazy anti bush chick... a liberal can be just as bad as a conservative... it's just how far you take it.

There are conflicting reports. It's hard to pin down if any of the nazi leaders did things by their own hands across the list of crimes, hell some generals it can't be even proved they ever shot anybody.

For all factual evidence, no he didn't shoot/kill one with his own hands for 100% sure recorded history.

[Mixah]

that's what records say, but it's still not something u cant say didn't go unrecorded. it's one of those things like.. the only thing that proves that he didn't is that there's no proof that he did.

[CrotchMonkey]

Why is holocaust denial an issue? It's amazing how holocaust denial is actually considered a crime now in some countries. This is ridiculous. I mean yes, i believe to that the holocaust happened, but to demonize someone who doesnt believe that the holocaust occured, or in this case someone who's asking for a thorough investigation of the events is completely absurd. It's just as retarted as calling someone anti-semitic for criticizing Israel.
I like this post. Scary that you can denounce God, but as soon as you say a few words questioning Holocaust you get slapped repeatedly.

[ninjabastard]

First and foremost, the CIA has stated that Iran is conservatively 10 years from aquiring a nuclear weapon.

That's the CIA's standard answer. 5 years to build the facilities, 5 years to refine the U-235. The fact that Iran has the facilties means its probably about 4-5 years away at most.


And even so, who cares if Iran is in posession of WMD's? Most other developed nations have em. We have hundreds, if not thousands!

I'm going to use my post from Az's form. It might go a little overboard but it states the main logic of nuclear weapons and why people shouldn't have them.

The idea that everyone who wants nukes, should be able to get them is retarded. By that logic everyone should be able to get a gun, no matter how retarded you are. There are restrictions on guns to prevent people who don't deserve them for a reason.

After WW2 the US came to the decision that no one should be using nuclear weapons. Keep in mind the US didn't know what were the affects of nuclear weapons at first. The Nagasaki bomb wasn't even tested prior to use. Nuclear weapons have a huge protentional for pain. Unlike guns, bombs and tanks which states don't mind using them against each other since there is a chance both will still survive, a nuclear bomb is in a different class since no state would accept being hit with a nuclear bomb. For this reason the UN security council, which is made of the 5 orginal nuclear members, wanted to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and along with other aggression.

The reason for the worry of proliferation is that we're worried that deterrance might fail, in that someone launches a nuke and another state can't respond as it normal would by destroying the lunching state. This could be a accidental lunch and not being able to tell who fired a nuke.

Also, while no state has used a nuclear weapon against another nuclear state, it doesn't mean it can't happen. Knowing that no one has used a nuke, 2 states could push too much leading to escalating tensious untill a nuke is fired.

Furthermore, as mention before by others, we don't want the sharing of nuclear tech which could pretty much kill the non-nuclear proliferation tready. If enough states gets nukes, every state would need to get nukes to be a "real" state so as to bargain on a equal level with the nuclear states.

Now why does the US not want Iran to have nukes? Again this steams from other classic writers on how nukes are used. If Iran gets nukes, it now has the ability to move freerer in the middle east, leading to more military attacks at the most and a more aggressive foriegn policy at the least. The way nukes work is that it's a way to protect vital interests, making attacks against those areas impossible without response, pretty much taking all convetional attacks off the table. Therefore, it runs the risk of Iran being a destablizing force in the mid-east.

Again, it can give the nuclear tech to other states which could lead to other states needing nukes to balance Iran.

This is assuming Iran is acting rationally. If they're acting irrationally, they'll most likey fire a nuke at isreal, forcing Isreal to respond with their supposed non-existant nuke.

Now as for the US's options.

1) military attacks - most likey can't work. Iran took a lession from Iraq and hid most of its nuclear facilities to prevent preemptive stikes. US is also busy in Iraq. But, a good leverage to scare iran a little.

2) give economic incentives - They're economy is crap so give them some chance for foriegn investment. This has been the european approch but i don't think it can work without some threat of force.

3) First strike - This is probably why I even wrote this post since people believe the US won't use nukes. The concept is that a nuclear state has so many nukes. If another state can blow all of them up at once before the infant nuclear state can respond after taking a hit, no more nukes. It prevents a state from having nukes if one side strikes first, preventing the other state from gaining an advantage.

Now if the states reach parity, then mad applies since it's then second-strike capablities, which means after taking a hit, a state can still respond painfully enough to DETER the other side.

At this point the US still has this option on the table. However this is a huge risk. It would work but it will piss the shit out of the world and you will likely see other states wanting nukes even more to prevent a US nuclear strike.

4) Let Iran have the nukes - in actuallity this isn't a bad option. Since Iran has show itself willing to with the US in both Afgainistand and Iraq. They released a terrorist in protest of the Axis of evil speech and other then a few other instances they've been pretty good for the most part. Still runs the risk of trading nuclear tech but i don't feel that's as likely as say north korea. There is of course the destablizing effect on the Mid-East also. It is however an option I think that the US might be able to live with in a worst case scenerio.

5) a mixture of threats and economic incentives aka sticks and carrots - the best option but you got to get the Europeans to give more threats and the US to give more incentives. Untill then Iran, as is presently doing, will play both off each other to buy time to its nuclear plants.

[Mixah]

I like this post. Scary that you can denounce God, but as soon as you say a few words questioning Holocaust you get slapped repeatedly.

No it's not.

Denouncing god is a matter of religious beliefs. God has never shown us his face, and therefore somebody can't say, "I have seen God!" without there being speculation. Even if you count me a million cases that people have said it... there's HOW MANY people in the world? a million is BY FAR a small percentage. That's on the same level as denying Atlantis or the Loch Ness...

Denouncing the Holocaust, when there's people that have tattoos and gruesome tales of what happened in concentration camps is ignorant. Denying the numbers is one thing, denying the severity that books make it seem is one thing. Denying it's existance is like denying that people were murdered on 9/11.

[GGL-steve]

First and foremost, the CIA has stated that Iran is conservatively 10 years from aquiring a nuclear weapon.

This is the same CIA that claimed Iraq had WMDS. Which is it do they get things right, or get things wrong. The "it's only right when it supports my logic" posts are stupid and make you look silly.


And even so, who cares if Iran is in posession of WMD's?

The entire world. Any state that openly claims to want to wipe another state off the face of the earth, and supports terrorism shouldn't have weapons. To claim otherwise is aburd.


nd even so, who cares if Iran is in posession of WMD's? Most other developed nations have em.

The logic of a child. I have a gun in my house, I abide by the law. You claim to want to kill people, are certified insane, but your having a gun is the same as mine. Doesn't work that way. Iran is a nation run by lunatics, and even though other nations run by idiots have nukes, that doesn't mean it's OK to spread that problem around. In fact that shows why we should not.


Why is holocaust denial an issue?

Because lies and bullshit are an issue. Here is another good one. America never owned slaves, and we never invaded Iraq. In fact we have never been to the persian gulf. It's all a myth made up by blacks and arabs to get away with crooked world policy.

That holds just as much water has holocaust denial, is just as true, and just as offensive.

It's called not being a fucking moron.

The great thing though is that since most of the world is rational we get rid of idiots and nations that go that route. Granted you always have a couple lunatics, but the system works.


It's just as retarted as calling someone anti-semitic for criticizing Israel.

There is a difference between calling a person a liar for spreading lies, and ignorant for ignoring facts, and calling somebody a racist for attacking one race constantly.

If you can't see that, then well, I'm glad you aren't a politician and just posting this junk on forums.

[CrotchMonkey]

Denying the numbers is one thing, denying the severity that books make it seem is one thing.
But it is so hard to even talk about that without someone getting really mad. When someone has believed a certain something all their life, I guess it is hard to change it.

Great work for Iran joining the nuclear "club" :rock:

[GGL-steve]

they aren't in the club yet, they can enrich uranium, that's a tad far from a bomb (though it's a step)... and odds are they will be wiped out before they get the bomb.

They made their move to soon, and like a scrub, acted before they should have. Only person who wins from this is bush.

So yeah, rock on iran for just making bush look right, and boosting his polls.

[m121akuma]

But it is so hard to even talk about that without someone getting really mad. When someone has believed a certain something all their life, I guess it is hard to change it.

Great work for Iran joining the nuclear "club" :rock:
Well, If I were to say that the enslavement of African Americans was exaggerated/non-existant, I'd be rightfully slapped around as well. Denying God is one thing, but denying history is something else entirely.

[Mixah]

lol

bush is about as right as i was in a lecture, when the teacher basically gave me the answers that i needed by his gestures... lol i like that story

ok, i'm done... i'm too tired to stay on this topic... i'm 5 minutes from leaving work

peace out

[AdverseSolutions]

But it is so hard to even talk about that without someone getting really mad. When someone has believed a certain something all their life, I guess it is hard to change it.

Great work for Iran joining the nuclear "club" :rock:

Just so everyone's clear, CrotchMonkey is enthusiastic about Iran joining the 'nuclear club' because he wants nuclear weapons used on Israel, which somehow fits into what his 'god' preaches.

And there should be no concession either on whether the holocaust happened or what the numbers are. Germany and its allies killed six million Jews in an effort at complete extermination of European Jewry, that's factual. I strongly object to the logic on display here that some people "just don't" believe the holocaust happened, as if it's a fucking ice cream preference or somebody wears a shitty bass-fishing tie to work every day. The holocaust is an incredible chapter of human history that tells us so much about fascism, its processes and end goals. Not to mention the agenda of sites like 'jew-watch'. I propose that people posting links to anti-Jewish sites like that should be banned from SRK just as someone posting links to an anti-black or anti-mexican site should be banned. As a fucking troll.

[FurryCurry]

snip of goodness

Thanks for that intelligent post that actually answered the topic question.

So what's the purpose of even having a nuclear weapon anymore? Even though it's an end all weapon, it causes so much collateral damage and how long is the fall out afterwards?

Although, if other nations had access to the technology we use with our conventional weapons (like laser guided bombs) then we'd have wars every freaking day.

[GGL-steve]

So what's the purpose of even having a nuclear weapon anymore? Even though it's an end all weapon, it causes so much collateral damage and how long is the fall out afterwards?

Not all nukes are the same. It goes from weak bunker busters, to weapons to take out cities and the area around them, to weapons that only kill life and leave electronics intact.

[FurryCurry]

Not all nukes are the same. It goes from weak bunker busters, to weapons to take out cities and the area around them, to weapons that only kill life and leave electronics intact.

Ok that last one. How the heck does that work?

[AHVB]

"This is the same CIA that claimed Iraq had WMDS. Which is it do they get things right, or get things wrong. The "it's only right when it supports my logic" posts are stupid and make you look silly."

The CIA didn' t claim that Iraq had WMD's if anything it was the opposite. THe only people who were saying that the CIA had WMD's was Bush & co. And Fox News. Read the Congressional report named "Iraq On THe Record" where Bush's public statements were compared to CIA and other intelligence reports that were availible and known to have been briefed to the president at the time that he made the statements. As a matter of fact check out the IAEA's reports from even a day before We went into IRaq, they clearly reported that Iraq was not in posession of WMD's. And everyone's blaming it on the CIA, kiss my ass with that B.S.


"The entire world. Any state that openly claims to want to wipe another state off the face of the earth, and supports terrorism shouldn't have weapons. To claim otherwise is aburd."

That's a matter of opinion. THere are many nations that have commited far worse crimes than the Iranians and who are in posession of WMD's.


"The logic of a child. I have a gun in my house, I abide by the law. You claim to want to kill people, are certified insane, but your having a gun is the same as mine. Doesn't work that way. Iran is a nation run by lunatics, and even though other nations run by idiots have nukes, that doesn't mean it's OK to spread that problem around. In fact that shows why we should not."

Kinda sounds like the U.S. at the moment, and we have the biggest arsenal of nukes. Fact is that to invade Iran is a horrible Idea. Even if they have a nuke they are not stupid enough to nuke israel. They know the consequences...


"Because lies and bullshit are an issue. Here is another good one. America never owned slaves, and we never invaded Iraq. In fact we have never been to the persian gulf. It's all a myth made up by blacks and arabs to get away with crooked world policy."

Yes I understand that, but to hold that against them and to have that kind of idea used against them in attempt to justifying an invasion of their country is completely absurd.

Iran has a right to defend itself when invaded. To demonize them for for pursuing nuclear weapons is completely retarted. Especially when we, or israel have absolutely no moral and factual authority to bar them from pursuing... An unprovoked attack on Iran would be a huge mistake on our behalf, mark my words.

[ninjabastard]

Thanks for that intelligent post that actually answered the topic question.

So what's the purpose of even having a nuclear weapon anymore? Even though it's an end all weapon, it causes so much collateral damage and how long is the fall out afterwards?
Basically its a bargaining chip and an ace in the hole. If you have nukes and someone else doesn't, you can use that as leverage to get polices from another country. US tries not to use the nuke threat too often for that reason since it gives state motivation to get nukes. Nukes cancel out each other.

Nukes also make it hard for states to start wars because there is the chance that you can back a state into a corner so it has nothing left but to fire a nuke. Nukes don't end wars but they keep them from escalating to full on conventional confrontations.

If you can't fight over vital interests, what you're going see happend like in the cold war, is that states will fight in the perphery were they really don't care about the states other than for the fact they are anathem to other major states. But, that's a bipolar world.

Also keep in mind nukes aren't the end all. They are the strongest current weapon. If there was a Ion sattlite system that could fire on anything, emp shit and knock nukes out of the sky. States would want that instead.



Although, if other nations had access to the technology we use with our conventional weapons (like laser guided bombs) then we'd have wars every freaking day.
Remember if they attack us, we attack them. Power and reciprocy.

edit: yeah there are other types of nukes. But, they play into the same nuclear stratgies. Particularlly the tactical nukes. This comes from concept of playing chicken and taking the steering wheel off. Because field commanders were given control of the tactical nukes, any conventional attack had the potentional of escalating to a nuclear war. Field commaders are interesed in winning a battle, not caring about the state implications of their decisions. This was a way to deter the USSR from invading Europe. Worked for the most part.

And the correct pronouncation of FLCL in Japanese is Furi Kuri.

[GGL-steve]

It's called the neutron bomb, it's a nuclear weapon.

It blasts neutrons that wipe out all life, and render the area uninhabitable for several years (fallout lasts decades) but doesn't destroy buildings or electronics.

So you drop it, then take over what they had and establish a base. It's been around since the 80's

[AdverseSolutions]

The interests of American and European capitalists is to keep the oil price low and prevent Middle East cartels from assuming too much power. By cornering Iran or potentially attacking it, they exercise leverage over its autonomous ability to set prices. Boxing Iran in with Afghanistan and Iraq was important in this step. So it makes sense that most recently it has not been America that has been the most gung-ho about enforcing resolutions against Iran, but France and Britain, whose oil supplies are largely dependent on the middle East. I'll be straight with you, I would love to see the Iranian nuclear facilities bombed with precision weapons that would accomplish their mission with a minimum of loss of life and that's it. But that won't happen. There will be more 'regime change' mixed up in this.

I am pro-regime change for Iran sure, I think the council of guardians, the supreme leader and moral enforcement are idiotic institutions. I would also love to see the open anti-semitism of the regime laid bare and overcome, but all of these things need to be done by the hands of Iranians, ones who have no loyalty to the status quo, either American or Iranian. There is a precedent for this. Most people think of the 1979 revolution in Iran as a revolution for Islam but that's not entirely true, the revolution began with widespread working class strikes, followed by the establishment of workers' councils inside factories that were coordinating production outside of a capitalist context. It was only by the organization of Hezbollah and the security services that this genuine movement for self-liberation was crushed and the sickening regime of the Ayatollah came into power.

All that said, AHVB uses his traditional reactionary logic to defend the Iranian regime. All nations have 'rights' to defend themselves if they are invaded, no matter the content of that defense nor the content of the regime. I suppose Japan had the same right in WWII, a total dictatorship that had triumphed over and buried anything that opposed it, should have been left alone to itself in the pacific. After all, what do we have in common with Japanese men and women who don't think they should be ruled by emperors? And what would we have in common with Iranians who don't think their personal conduct should be determined by anyone but themselves?

[FurryCurry]

And the correct pronouncation of FLCL in Japanese is Furi Kuri.

Time to drop some knowledge, for you, and for every other SRKer out there. My name isn't a refrence to the awesomeness that is FLCL. It's a nick name that was given to me probably before the show was even thought of.

So my name actually means what it says.


It better have been before 2000

Yup. Middle school baby!

[ninjabastard]

Time to drop some knowledge, for you, and for every SRKer out there. My name isn't a homage to the awesomeness that is FLCL. It's a nick name that was given to me probably before the show was even thought of.
It better have been before 2000

[CrotchMonkey]

Most people think of the 1979 revolution in Iran as a revolution for Islam but that's not entirely true, the revolution began with widespread working class strikes, followed by the establishment of workers' councils inside factories that were coordinating production outside of a capitalist context. It was only by the organization of Hezbollah and the security services that this genuine movement for self-liberation was crushed and the sickening regime of the Ayatollah came into power.

The British and American's pulled in the Ayatollah so they can have another Yes Man, as the Shah was becoming too strong. What a surprise to see what kind of effect that had down the road!

As much as I'd like to see the morality police fucking gone, going back to American controlled times or having the country blown up would be a disappointment. Fuck Islam :hitit:

"ISSLAAAAAAAM!! PRREEEECCHES PEEEEECE AND EQUAAAAAALITTY!!" -that African guy.

[Javid]

snip


You should be the last one to make such a statement. You had an avatar that defaced Islam's holiest prophet and when people post links to "anti-semitic" sites you get offended. :lol:

Let's face it, Israel has nuclear weapons, and might I remind everyone that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does. Nuclear weapons will bring Iran to a state of equilibrium. We all know that in the near future Iran is a clear target for America. America isn't interested in negotiations, it wants regime change.

Like I have said before, Iran is truly the last bastion of resistance towards Israel. It is the only country that can do something and hopefully will.

It's funny how people are so sensitive about the Holocaust, yet they don't even dare to question the history behind it. I'm not gonna deny the holocaust flat out, but I will always question the key facts attributed to it. History is written by few, but it must be always analyzed.

By the way, one of the best videos of all time is right here:

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1081wmv&ak=null

The truth.

[TS]

Like I have said before, Iran is truly the last bastion of resistance towards Israel.


What?

[CrotchMonkey]

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1081wmv&ak=null

The truth.
I like the talks by Ali Larijani.

[altron1x]

all of this over a chop taken from genmay? :D

[Ragetowersrage]

Iran reminds me of that trouble maker in Elementry school. The kid that would do things for attention, then say "Yea....Well im gonna do it again!!" or " I did it cause i wanted to" then get surprised when they get in trouble



The way Iran is taking the situation, its like they are going "Yea we support terrorists" "We are making WMDs!!!!"

I wanna see their faces when we blow them up. Then hear them say.."We dont have any weapons!"

[TS]

Does Iran even deny that they're trying to make a weapon anymore?

In the begining t was "Of COURSE we're not reasearching for nuclear weapons, we have no IDEA what you're even TALKING about!!" Now it's like "OMG flying boats, WATCH OUT MUHFUCKAS, Pre-emptive strikes!!"

And again, as someone else pointed out, America isn't the only one bitching about Iran, we were just the first ones who stepped up and did so the loudest. Even Russia and China, who make quite a bit of money from Iran, are also telling them to act right.

[Orochi Jeebus]

Does Iran even deny that they're trying to make a weapon anymore?

In the begining t was "Of COURSE we're not reasearching for nuclear weapons, we have no IDEA what you're even TALKING about!!" Now it's like "OMG flying boats, WATCH OUT MUHFUCKAS, Pre-emptive strikes!!"

And again, as someone else pointed out, America isn't the only one bitching about Iran, we were just the first ones who stepped up and did so the loudest. Even Russia and China, who make quite a bit of money from Iran, are also telling them to act right.

excuse me? russia and china are currently backing iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033000244.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-09/22/content_479883_2.htm


and anyone that bothered to actually READ the link i posted on the holocaust would see that it DOESN'T deny the existance of the systematic executiton of jews, but states the incredible variance in actual holocaust death figures. if six million really died, then why does the plaque AT AUSCHWITZ in 1989 read "four million people" and in 2002, "one and a half million"? if we can't get a solid figure on the memorial plaque outside of the most infamous nazi death camp, at which so many best-selling novels take place, where COULD we get a solid figure? i don't know... let's check the almanacs.

for those of you incapable of actually studying the material for yourselves, here are some figures-
World Almanac, 1933, pg. 419 -- 15,316,359, ["The estimate for Jews in the above table is for 1933, and is by the American Jewish Committee"

World Almanac USA, 1947, pg. 748: World Jewish Population -- 15,690,000

INTERESTING. an INCREASE in population during the time in which the holocaust took place. go research this for yourself. go to the library. go pick up these almanacs. or just call me a liar & keep living the real lie yourself.

[Orochi Ken]

World Almanacs from that period of time would be unreliable, it could have easily been that most of the displaced Jews came out into developed areas where census and population data like that is better recorded.

On a smaller scale it seems like people who deny the Holocaust happening in WW2 also would deny Abu Gharaib happening in the Iraqi War right now.

Also as a response to Ninjabastards earlier comment about people with Orochi in their names:

People with ninja in their names should have their teeth taken out with a hunting knife.

[Orochi Jeebus]

World Almanacs from that period of time would be unreliable, it could have easily been that most of the displaced Jews came out into developed areas where census and population data like that is better recorded.


could you explain this better? i'm having trouble understanding your statement.

i'd also like to know what happened to the 5 million jews that disappeared between 1989 and 2001 according to the almanacs.



On a smaller scale it seems like people who deny the Holocaust happening in WW2 also would deny Abu Gharaib happening in the Iraqi War right now.


would you believe it if someone that told you six million people died in abu gharaib? again, i am not saying jews were never executed by the germans, but that the numbers are ridiculously off.

[Mixah]

two books i think some people on this board should read

Defying Hitler by Sebastian Haffner
Execution by Hunger by Miron Dolot

it just seems to me that a lot of people have misunderstandings of records from WWII and all that went on... and the second book is about what stalin did... everybody remembers hitler's crimes, but forget about stalin

[Sheng-Long]

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14604.shtml
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000771.html

on iran's stance that there was no holocaust, i present the following study.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-lies-hoax-frauds-blackflagops-hoaxarchive.html

before you get your panties in a bunch and close the window, consider the source of the figures: almanacs. good luck finding a more reliable source.



could you explain this better? i'm having trouble understanding your statement.

i'd also like to know what happened to the 5 million jews that disappeared between 1989 and 2001 according to the almanacs.


The original figure was from the Soviet Union. As you pointed out, the figure changed between 1989 and 2001 (Fall of communism happened etc).

The auschwitz museum in Poland provides an explanation for this discrepancy:

http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/news_big.php?id=563



When the Soviet army entered the camp on January 27, 1945, they did not find any German documents there giving the number of victims, or any that could be used as a basis for calculating this number. Such documents (transport lists, notifications of the arrival of transports, reports about the outcome of selection) had been destroyed before liberation. For this reason, the Soviet commission investigating the crimes committed in Auschwitz Concentration Camp had to make estimates.

They used statements by former prisoners as a basis for establishing the length of time that the particular crematoria had functioned, and their daily capacity. Multiplying these two factors yielded a figure of 5,000,000. Estimating that at least 20% of the time had been taken up by interruptions for maintenance or repairs, the commission concluded that 4,000,000 had been burned, and therefore had perished, in the camp.3

[rsigley]

i'm pretty sure all this stuff was said by the president of iran who has no power

the ayatollah has all the power in iran, no one cares what the president of iran says because he's a nobody

[Javid]

What?

Iran is probably the only serious nation in the world today that does not recognize Israel. They support various groups that have traditonally fought for their rights against Israel.

Iran is also notorious for helping opressed Shia Muslims around the world. They did so in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq during the days of Saddam.


I like the talks by Ali Larijani.

Yeah, you're the lucky one. I get about half a dozen channels from Iran, but I very rarely get to catch a good speech. I guess I should start watching more of it.

[Orochi Jeebus]

The original figure was from the Soviet Union. As you pointed out, the figure changed between 1989 and 2001 (Fall of communism happened etc).

The auschwitz museum in Poland provides an explanation for this discrepancy:

http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/news_big.php?id=563

my sources say otherwise

In 1989 I organized a write-in campaign to persuade the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few months afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these all-important documents to the Red Cross, which showed in minute detail why people had died in Auschwitz, the cause and time of death, their birth, address etc.

74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of Poles and members of other nationalities.
http://www.christianparty.net/hoess.htm

here is another source

These words were inscribed on the 19 plaques until 1990. Even the Pope blessed this plaque in 1979. The words were removed after Soviet Union President Gorbachev released in 1989 the Auschwitz Death Books which until then, it was thought the Germans had destroyed while evacuating Auschwitz.
http://www.ihr.org/other/990503warrant.html

and be sure to browse this page:
http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=2771

and call me a nazi for citing stormfront, but their facts are straight.
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/Auschwitz.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/numbers.htm

and a related question: why make it illegal to question anything if we live in a free society?

edit: one more question: who builds the door to their gas chamber out of WOOD?
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blauschwitz35.htm

google images for "auschwitz delousing chamber" returns the EXACT SAME PHOTO.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/Image28.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndNowak.html&h=759&w=517&sz=169&tbnid=T8PVy2y99fgATM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=95&hl=en&start=7&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dauschwitz%2Bdelousing%2Bchamber%26svn um%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3D firefox%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

which is more believable, that the nazis made gas chambers with wooden doors, or that this is in fact a delousing chamber? & isn't it interesting that the more research is put into wild claims of the holocaust, particularly forensic evidence of the soil in the area, (which would surely show evidence of six million people cremated and dumped there) more and more of these claims are debunked?

[m121akuma]

74,000 people in Auschwitz alone is an insane number, you realize that right?

And you're citing Stormfront....

[Naslectronical]

There's really nothing much that can be done about Iran getting nukes right now. Atleast, not without terrible consequences.

Israel can't bomb its reactors, since they don't know where they are. There's also the fact that it would result in a full-scale retaliatory attack on Israel, most likely involving chemical and biological weapons.

A US attack on Iran is also a terrible idea, because Iran could a) jack up oil prices and attack oil tankers coming from the Strait of Hormuz b) use its terrorist links to cause hell c) use its influence to inflame the insurgency in Iraq.

The US would love regime change, but that's not going to happen either. Regime change would mean that the US would have to occupy Iran, which is impossible because it's bogged down in Iraq right now. Also, in Iran, the US forces would face a unified Shiite insurgency. The Iraq war zone would look like a holiday resort compared to what would happen in Iran. There'd be traffic jams of car bombers ready to blow up anything red, white, and blue. Basically, it would be a long, protracted conflict that the US would have no hope of winning.

Anyway, it was only a matter of time before this happened. First, the US declared Iran as part of an axis of evil, and then proceeded to invade and occupy two countries that border Iran. If the shoe were on the other foot, and Iran invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada, you think the US wouldn't be trying to acquire nukes?

The US-led invasion of Iraq has insured that Iran will not rest until it has acquired not only nukes, but also missiles that can reach the United States.

[GGL-steve]

We do know where they key ones are so we can bomb them.

Nobody retaliated the last time Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in the region, there was no massive issue.

The truth is ever since Israel spanked all those nations combined, they have been very cautious about an outright attack on them, if they tried the result would be the same.

As for them having missiles that reach the US, not really a chance of that. North Korea can't, China can only hit parts of the west coast, and we'd wipe out Iran before we let that happen.

I'm not saying the US is in the right. but you seriously over estimate how effective Iran's military capabilites are, and how much backbone the arab nations have after the beatings they have taken from Israel in the past.

[R.P.D rookie]

Hmmm, Bush labeling the countries Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "axis of evil" probably wasn't the best words to use. It's nothing compared to Iran declaring that it would like to see Israel wiped off the map but hey. I mean if a country like China declared the U.S.A. along with Great Britain and France as an axis of evil, what would you think about that? That kind of seems like a threatening form of speech that only adds fuel to the fire but that's just how I'm looking at it at the moment.

[Naslectronical]

We do know where they key ones are so we can bomb them.

Even US military analysts have stated that they don't know where all of the "key" ones are, and they've also stated that it is uncertain whether or not an attack would achieve its goal.




Iraq didn't retaliate because it was too bogged down with the war with Iran. Iran, on the other hand, you can bet it would hit every panic button if Israel were to try the same thing.

[QUOTE]
The truth is ever since Israel spanked all those nations combined, they have been very cautious about an outright attack on them, if they tried the result would be the same.

The last time Israel spanked anyone was the 6 day war, and I'd hardly call Egypt, Syria, and Jordan "all those nations". And could they have done that without the vast military aid that they receive from the US? Just look at the Ramadan war. Had it not been for US aid(and to a lesser extent, Syria's idiocy), Israel would be no more.



As for them having missiles that reach the US, not really a chance of that. North Korea can't, China can only hit parts of the west coast, and we'd wipe out Iran before we let that happen.

Maybe not right now, and attacking Iran would only make the situation worse.



I'm not saying the US is in the right. but you seriously over estimate how effective Iran's military capabilites are, and how much backbone the arab nations have after the beatings they have taken from Israel in the past.

Iran's military capabilities should be the least of anyone's worries, that's not even what I'm talking about.

And if you think that Iran gives a rat's behing about what happened when other nations went to war with Israel in the past, you're mistaken. They certainly wouldn't just sit there and take it if Israel attacked. Unlike Saddam Hussein, who knew of the consequences of retaliation for the bombing, Iran doesn't care. As I've stated, they'd exercise every retaliatory option available to them, and I think that even Israel knows this, no matter how many arab nations that they've defeated in the past.

[Bowza]

Although these may not deal directly with Iran, I think its important for everyone to read these articles, simply to get a better understanding of the perspectives of groups that are on the US list of known terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC31Ak02.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD01Ak02.html

[CrotchMonkey]

Iran is probably the only serious nation in the world today that does not recognize Israel. They support various groups that have traditonally fought for their rights against Israel.

Iran is also notorious for helping opressed Shia Muslims around the world. They did so in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq during the days of Saddam.



Yeah, you're the lucky one. I get about half a dozen channels from Iran, but I very rarely get to catch a good speech. I guess I should start watching more of it.
I'm pretty sure there are some on that Memri TV website.

[AHVB]

This is an excellent article on the bullshit that was fed to us regarding Iraq's WMD program.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

100% sourced and cited.


It is inescapable historical reality that leaders of nations will lie to their people to trick them into wars they otherwise would have refused. It is not "conspiracy theory" to suggest that leaders of nations lie to trick their people into wars. It is undeniable fact.

This brings us to the present case.

Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?

This question has been given currency by a memo leaked from inside the British Government which clearly indicates a decision to go to war followed by the "fixing" of information around that policy. This is, as they say, a smoking gun.

But the fact is that long before this memo surfaced, it had become obvious that the US Government, aided by that of Great Britain, was lying to create the public support for a war in Iraq.

First off is Tony Blair's "Dodgy Dossier", a document released by the Prime Minister that made many of the claims used to support the push for war. The dossier soon collapsed when it was revealed that much of it had been plagiarized from a student thesis paper that was 12 years old!

The contents of the dossier, however much they seemed to create a good case for invasion, were obsolete and outdated.

This use of material that could not possibly be relevant at the time is clear proof of a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Then there was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction. The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003.

This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.

Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. Both CIA and Powell's own State Department confirmed that the tubes were parts for missiles Saddam was legally allowed to have. Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.

Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.

Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.

Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.

Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed. The only VX ever found were samples the US had left as "standards" for testing. When the UN suspected that the US samples had been used to contaminate Iraqi warheads, the US moved quickly to destroy the samples before comparison tests could be carried out.

Powell claimed that Iraq was building long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons. The only drones found were short-range reconnaissance drones.

Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.

Powell claimed that "unnamed sources" confirmed that Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons. No such weapons were ever used by the Iraqis to defend against the invasion and, of course, none were ever found in Iraq.

Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.

Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found.

Powell claimed to have an audio tape proving that Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden. But independent translation of the tape revealed Osama's wish for Saddam's death.

Colin Powell's UN debacle also included spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam's massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually suggested what the blobby shapes were and during inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be rather benign.

In at least one case, the satellite Powell claimed had taken one of the pictures had actually been out of operation at the time. And many questioned why Powell was showing black and white photos when the satellites in use at the time over Iraq took color images.

Another piece of evidence consists of documents which President Bush referenced as in his 2003 State of the Union Speech. According to Bush, these documents proved that Iraq was buying tons of uranium oxide, called "Yellow Cake" from Niger.

Since Israel had bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant years before, it was claimed that the only reason Saddam would have for buying uranium oxide was to build bombs.

This hoax fell apart fast when it was pointed out that Iraq has a great deal of uranium ore inside their own borders and no need to import any from Niger or anywhere else. The I.A.E.A. then blew the cover off the fraud by announcing that the documents Bush had used were not only forgeries, but too obvious to believe that anyone in the Bush administration did not know they were forgeries! The forged documents were reported as being "discovered" in Italy by SISMI, the Italian Security Service. Shortly before the "discovery" the head of SISMI had been paid a visit by Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and two officials from OSP, one of whom was Larry Franklin, the Israeli spy operating inside the OSP.

In July, 2005, the Italian Parliament concluded their own investgation and named four men as suspects in the creation of the forged documents. Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes. This report has been included in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame, and Paul McNulty, the prosecutor of the AIPAC spy case.

In the end, the real proof that we were lied to about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That means that every single piece of paper that purported to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was by default a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. There could be no evidence that supported the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In a way, the existence of any faked documents about Iraq's WMDs is actually an admission of guilt. If one is taking the time to create fake documents, the implication is that the faker is already aware that there are no genuine documents.

What the US Government had, ALL that they had, were copied student papers, forged "Yellow Cake" documents, balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, and photos with misleading labels on them. And somewhere along the line, someone decided to put those misleading labels on those photos, to pretend that balloon inflators are portable bioweapons labs, and to pass off stolen student papers as contemporary analysis.

And THAT shows an intention to deceive.

Lawyers call this "Mens Rea", which means "Guilty Mind". TV lawyer shows call it "Malice aforethought". This means that not only did the Bush Administration lie to the people and to the US Congress, but knew they were doing something illegal at the time that they did it.

All the talk about "Intelligence failure" is just another lie. There was no failure. Indeed the Army agents who erroneously claimed that missile tubes were parts for a uranium centrifuge received bonuses, while the Pentagon smeared Hans Blix, and John Bolton orchestrated the firing of Jose Bustani, the director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

The President of the United States and his Neocon associates lied to the people of the United States to send them off on a war of conquest.

Defenders of the government will point to the cases listed at the top of the page as proof that lying to the people is a normal part of the leader's job and we should all get used to it. And because "Everybody does it" that we should not single out the present administration. But this is madness. We do not catch all the murderers, yet when we catch a murderer, we deal with them as harshly as possible, in order to deter more murderers.

Right now, we have the criminals at hand. and, while other leaders in history have lied to start wars, for the first time in history, the lie stands exposed while the war started with the lies still rages on, to the death and detriment of our young men and women in uniform. We cannot in good moral conscience ignore this lie, this crime, lest we encourage future leaders to continue to lie to us to send our kids off to pointless wars. Lying to start a war is more than an impeachable offence; it the highest possible crime a government can commit against their own people. Lying to start a war is not only misappropriation of the nation's military and the nation's money under false pretenses, but it is outright murder committed on a massive scale. Lying to start a war is a betrayal of the trust each and every person who serves in the military places in their civilian leadership. By lying to start a war, the Bush administration has told the military fatalities and their families that they have no right to know why they were sent to their deaths. It's none of their business.

Our nation is founded on the principle of rule with the consent of the governed. Because We The People do not consent to be lied to, a government that lies rules without the consent of the governed, and ruling without the consent of the governed is slavery.

You should be more than angry. You should be in a rage. You should be in a rage no less than that of the families of those young men and women who have been killed and maimed in this war started with a lie.You need to be in a rage and you need to act on that rage because even as I type these words, the same government that lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons is telling the exact same lies about Iran's nuclear capabilities. The writing is on the wall; having gotten away with lying to start the war in Iraq, the US Government will lie to start a war in Iran, and after that another, and after that another, and another and another and another because as long as you remain silent, and as long as you remain inactive, the liars have no reason to stop.

As long as you remain inactive, the liars have no reason to stop.

None.

It is time to fire the liars.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing" .
--Edmund Burke

[ninjabastard]

I'm so tired of reading AHVB's bullshit posts.

The French thought the same damn thing. In the 90's it was the French who were pushing for a tougher stance on Iraq. In the gearing up to Iraq war 2, the US knew that the French and the Russians had oil deals with Iraq. Powel approched the French foriegn minister and said don't vote for the first resolution unless your going to vote for the 2nd.

You want an unbiased opinon, go read Woodward's book "Plan of Attack", he documents every little detail in the decision making process. Heaven forbid you actully use a source that wasn't from crazymotherfuckers.com

Why did we think saddam had WMD's? Because he wanted to look like it to prevent domestic coups and to deter Iran. After 95 he didn't have WMD's but his behavior was still the same. After 98 when UNSCOM left, there was no intell in Iraq and everyone just assumed the worst. 9/11 more or less scarred the shit out the US because if 2 planes did this, what would a WMD do? Sadly our CIA was set up more for the cold war then anything else.

Also the intellegence guys are kind of dumb too. My decision making professor worked in Washington under Wolfawitz and helped teach the intellegence community. He said,"People ask me all the time what's the difference between teaching in academia and working with the intellgence community. I tell them there is no difference. People in both have an incomplete education"

Of course, the US really fucked up the post-war since the the balance of power in that state got really screwed. It would also be quite helpful if there was a government established to reign in the power vaccum.

And I know you won't fucking watch this vid even though it's David Kay head of the US weapons inspectors and a achedemic from Harvard. But its ok, i understand. http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_video.asp?ID=2640 (skip the introductions)

[GGL-steve]

Why did we think saddam had WMD's?

because we sold him several back in the 80's, some people forget that

[ninjabastard]

because we sold him several back in the 80's, some people forget that
Vx, mustard, and sarin go inert after 7-10 years. So the stuff we gave them is worthless by now.

Saddam did have the ability to produce WMD's up untill 95 but after he got cought too many times by UNSCOM, he dismantled the program down to its minimal componets. The information on how to make WMD's was still there. Saddam was waiting untill sanctions were lifted before reviving the program. Saddam gave oil contracts to France, Russia and Germany but said I can't give you all this oil untill sanctions are lifted. This would insure that those states would use their positions to influence the weapons inspections regime, making it weaker over time. Those leaked CIA vids/documents say some stuff about his programs also. I'm using the David Kay report for some of my info, the lecture I posted, Woodworth's book, Kenith Pollack, and my US foreign policy professor's paper on this.

[Javid]

Nobody retaliated the last time Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in the region, there was no massive issue.


This was Iraq in the 1980's. Might I remind you that Iraq was at war at this time with Iran. Had Iraq retaliated(which it probably couldn't have on a massive scale) it would have lost U.S support. Saddam wasn't interested in a two front war. Sure his regime was pissed, but they had much bigger fish to go after.

If there is going to be an attack on Iran though, you better watch out. Iran has many cards and won't be afraid to play them.

[TS]

excuse me? russia and china are currently backing iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033000244.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-09/22/content_479883_2.htm

No, they are not. They're just keeping them from being sanctioned, to keep the situation from getting out of hand (or, really, to make sure that they get their money from Iran). My comment came from an incident a few months ago where China and/or Russia urged Iran to stop being obstinate and talk about the nuclear issue and/or tone down the rhetoric, I forget which.


javidjin- You said that Iran was the last line of "resistence" against Israel. What is it that needs to be resisted?

[AHVB]

I'm so tired of reading AHVB's bullshit posts. Look, you understand the difference between fucking up and lying right? I'm mean there's a huge difference in how the law interprets this.

It wasn't just the US that got it wrong, every nation got it wrong. The French thought the same damn thing. In the 90's it was the French who were pushing for a tougher stance on Iraq. In the gearing up to Iraq war 2, the US knew that the French and the Russians had oil deals with Iraq. Powel approched the French foriegn minister and said don't vote for the first resolution unless your going to vote for the 2nd.

You want an unbiased opinon, go read Woodward's book "Plan of Attack", he documents every little detail in the decision making process. Heaven forbid you actully use a source that wasn't from crazymotherfuckers.com

Why did we think saddam had WMD's? Because he wanted to look like it to prevent domestic coups and to deter Iran. After 95 he didn't have WMD's but his behavior was still the same. After 98 when UNSCOM left, there was no intell in Iraq and everyone just assumed the worst. 9/11 more or less scarred the shit out the US because if 2 planes did this, what would a WMD do? Sadly our CIA was set up more for the cold war then anything else.

Also the intellegence guys are kind of dumb too. My decision making professor worked in Washington under Wolfawitz and helped teach the intellegence community. He said,"People ask me all the time what's the difference between teaching in academia and working with the intellgence community. I tell them there is no difference. People in both have an incomplete education"

Of course, the US really fucked up the post-war since the the balance of power in that state got really screwed. It would also be quite helpful if there was a government established to reign in the power vaccum.

And I know you won't fucking watch this vid even though it's David Kay head of the US weapons inspectors and a achedemic from Harvard. But its ok, i understand. http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_video.asp?ID=2640 (skip the introductions)

Yes there is a difference between fucking up and lying. Colin Powell going up to the U.N. and making a presentation that was filled with information that was known to be false is LYING (Rememer the "Slam Dunk" Case). Saddam completely denied having WMD's and challenged our president to a live debate and our president refused. The Downing street memo clealy states that intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy of going to war with Iraq. A few weeks ago another memo was leaked in which the president clearly approved the use of aircraft being painted and having U.N. logos being added to it and provoking Saddam to shoot the airplanes down in order to justify an invasion. Noone ever mentions the fact that the the "niger yellow cake documents" were complete and obvious forgeries.

You want me to cite good sources? How about the IAEA clearly stating in the weeks before the war that Iraq was not in posession of WMD's, What about Hans Blix clearly stating that Iraq was in full cooperation with the Inspections and that nothing illegal was being found, What about the House Intelligence COmmitees report "Iraq On The Record" which clearly states and proves that the president made intentionally misleading statements in order to get the public behind the war.

People lay the blame on the CIA. That is complete and utter bullshit. The CIA clearly told the white house in 2002 that there were serious doubts about Iraqs WMD program. The State Department warned the white house about doubts on Iraqs WMD program, The IAEA reported SINCE 1997 and regaularly for a few years on that traq was not in posession of WMD's and to this day there has been no hard evidence to support the notion that Iraq was in posession of WMD's. ANd I'm supposed to believe that Bsh & CO. just messed up evern though everyone around them clearly told them that their case was flawed. Get the fuck outta here.

[Orochi Jeebus]

No, they are not. They're just keeping them from being sanctioned, to keep the situation from getting out of hand (or, really, to make sure that they get their money from Iran). My comment came from an incident a few months ago where China and/or Russia urged Iran to stop being obstinate and talk about the nuclear issue and/or tone down the rhetoric, I forget which.




that may have been the case several months ago, but things are changing and escalating very quickly. both russia and china are becoming dependent on iran, and if there's one thing that leads to allegiance, it's dependence.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid051027_1_n.shtml

interestingly enough, news reports have begun to surface recently of the possibility of the Ukraine supplying iran with nuclear warheads. this is based on a figure of a "missing" 250 warheads that were supposed to be returned to russia but never were.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060403-031814-4277r
and then we have a report of nuclear-capable cruise missles being sold to iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4361505.stm

not only that, but russia has been supplying venezuela (which is CLOSE TO US, and no longer US-friendly after the US planned to assassinate chavez) with mig-29 fighter jets as well as soviet SS-N-22 Sunburn/Onyx missles. in addition to this, venezuela has agreed to ship its oil to china instead of the US. so it would appear that venezuela has joined the iran/china/russia team, and they're all arming themselves to the teeth. any rational individual can see they're preparing for something, most likely a retaliative strike against the US.
http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/greatsatan.html
nations don't arm themselves for nothing.

here's more information on the sunburn/onyx missle and why it's so dangerous.
http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

[GGL-steve]

Russia and China are not dependant on Iran. Quit smoking that pro Arab crack pipe the saudi's pass out to America and look at what's going on. Granted I know the spend billions manipulating or public, but common.

Iran needs Russia, and China, not the other way around. If anything China is dependant on America because of all the trade involved, and how much labor we export there.

China and Russia make a fair amount of money on behind the door deals with Iran but Russia has it's own oil and uses Iran like a 2 dollar whore to help rig prices, and China can go other to other nations.

They have repeatedly told Iran to straighten the fuck up because neither of them will back them up if it comes down to it. Both are looking for an exit strategy to distance themselves from Iran because frankly, Iran isn't worth disgracing themselves over. They'd sit back and watch them get turned to ash shrug their shoulders and pick another state to do buisness with.

As for the sunburn missile, that's old news. Other nations have had that for a long ass time, and uh so far name one thing it's actually hit? You can't, why... because most of the things you think are facts, is bullshit people made up and posted on the internet (mostly the crazy pro arab whackos who love suckers like you) to make the situation look different then it is.

[Orochi Jeebus]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=China-Iran-Russia_axis
sometimes i wonder if people actually read the links i post.

other nations might have had the sunburn missle for a while, but america isn't one of them. america TRIED to purchase sunburn missles from russia in 1995, but was promptly rejected.

it might seem to you that my lack of support for the US's foreign policy decisions as of late would make me pro-arab, but i am not pro-arab. i am pro-equality, and having a fucked up fanatical nation such as israel being the only nation with nukes in the middle east is not equality. a break in west's nuclear monopoly in the middle east is approaching, and they don't like it one bit. but tough fucking luck, the west is losing it's grip on the world and there's nothing they can do about it aside from attacking those that seek to break that grip- and that's exactly what we're about to see.

[fishjie]

Can you really blame Iran for wanting nukes? If you look at a map, they are surrounded on ALL sides by their enemies. If you were running the country, you too would want some kind of insurance against an invasion and some kind of leverage in diplomatic situations. Of course, no one else in the world wants them to have nukes which is understandable as well.

[GGL-steve]

We don't need sunburn missiles, we've had hypersonic missiles for a long fucking time (even before the sunburn existed).

The "purchase" was an intel op to legaly get one take it apart and see how well it worked. When that failed we procured one under other means and did the same fucking thing.

As always, you don't seem to have all the facts on the situation.

[P. Gorath]

ninjabastard - after everything that has come out, especially this week in regard to the two trailers, how can you still sit there and say with a straight face that it was all just a fuckup, that everyone got it wrong? revisionist history at its worst.

[ninjabastard]

ninjabastard - after everything that has come out, especially this week in regard to the two trailers, how can you still sit there and say with a straight face that it was all just a fuckup, that everyone got it wrong? revisionist history at its worst.
Link me and i'll read it. I havent had much time to follow the news. Or give me the gist of it.

Edit: ok from what I've read, I assume you refer to the leaked documents talking about how Iraq was producing uranium.

Or, you talking the further acusation that Bush/Chaney leaked info about that CIA agent?

Either way, I can't tell which side is right at this point since there's investigation leaving us with little facts.

[P. Gorath]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html

[ninjabastard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
That's it? I can tell you whenever something hasn't completely decided, both sides are going to use retheoric saying it proves them right. Probably after being proven wrong too. Janet Reno back in Clinton's day killed some investigations and what not too while Clinton constantly said he didn't have affairs when girl after girl came out. Maybe I'm bisaed from all the crap i've seen governments do but trying to sell anything to the people whenever possible might be wrong but it's what governments do - not just the US. I don't what to give Bush a pass for being a fucking idiot, don't mistake me, but hardly the worst thing in my mind since everyone does it.

And I already said the CIA was stupid. Intellegence is alot of times ambugious, which is why Bush got it wrong. Within the CIA and defense intellegence communities there were two sides interpreting what the info ment. The Bush side won.

By the way, I would be careful about calling my sources "revisionist" especially Woodworth since he was the journalist who reported to the newspaper what "Deepthoat"(I forget his real name) said about Watergate. Pollack also had security clearance for CIA intell. Just because you don't know who they are, doesn't mean they're not credible.

Edit: Does this pass the lying test? The reasons for war was where it mattered. When looking for evidence after the fact to prove your case for war, and you can't find anything. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact you were incorrect in your intitial decision. It would be like you killed an unarmed man because you thought he had a gun and then lied about the what happend when you couldn't find one. Your intitial decision was based on incorrect facts yet did not have bad intentions but after that you are wrong in how you then acted. Does it change the intital mistake into a lie? Probably not but it does not look good in the eyes of the court for the behavior afterward.

This is more wanting to believe so bad that you've found gold in a dumpster and trying not to look like a tard when you found shit.

I can tell you how I interpret what and why the US was in Iraq but that goes into a lot of theory and more importanly, I lot of writting. Preventive war would be the reason here i would argue. The right and wrong of that goes into your beliefs in how the international state system functions.

[P. Gorath]

who the fuck is woodworth?

[ninjabastard]

who the fuck is woodworth?
The guy who exposed Watergate. He get's alot of interviews with high level government officals since the motto is that it's better for you to have him pissing out of the tent instead of pissing in.

He's in the high level meetings for the most part. Bush, Rumsfled, Rice and others are interviewed.

He gives a good analysis of the decision making process in the build up to the Iraq war, which is probably why it's assigned reading for my Foreign Policy: decision-making and the tools of state craft class.

[AdverseSolutions]

javidjin- You said that Iran was the last line of "resistence" against Israel. What is it that needs to be resisted?

Still waiting on an answer to this question.

[GGL-steve]

And I already said the CIA was stupid. Intellegence is alot of times ambugious, which is why Bush got it wrong. Within the CIA and defense intellegence communities there were two sides interpreting what the info ment. The Bush side won.

As somebody who's worked in the intel industry I'll agree.

Intelligence never answers a question, it's just a means of gathering all information around it. The end product is never conclusive, or sure. It's advice meant for policy makers.

[ninjabastard]

OK, I double checked the spelling I used and umm... I spelled Woodward wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

[Javid]

Still waiting on an answer to this question.


Iran is the only nation in the Middle East who will not accept Israel openly. Under what conditions can the exsistence of Israel be justifed? Iran will not accept a pariah state in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons. Above all else Iran supports the Palestinian resistance. Whether Israel likes it or not, there will never be peace. At this stage it is done for. Now with Olmert and his gang in power a strategy has already been put in place.

My statement was what it said. Iran supports the rights of those to defend themselves against Israel. You may call it terroism or whatever else you like.

[AdverseSolutions]

Under what conditions can the exsistence of Israel be justifed?

Gee maybe the European holocaust?

[Orochi Jeebus]

Gee maybe the European holocaust?


lol, exactly. :clap:

exaggerate the suffering of your own people to the jewish-international-bank-controlled allies with RIDICULOUS figures that mysteriously change over time, so that you may have a strategic standpoint right in the heart of the middle east, from which you can claim to "feel unsafe" and require protection from all these big scary arabs from your good buddies in the UN & the US. then you can use THEIR military might to crush YOUR enemies, the arabs, and eventually take control of the resource-rich middle east. sounds like a solid plan to me.

heil zion!:party:

[AdverseSolutions]

lol, exactly. :clap:

exaggerate the suffering of your own people to the jewish-international-bank-controlled allies with RIDICULOUS figures that mysteriously change over time, so that you may have a strategic standpoint right in the heart of the middle east, from which you can claim to "feel unsafe" and require protection from all these big scary arabs from your good buddies in the UN & the US. then you can use THEIR military might to crush YOUR enemies, the arabs, and eventually take control of the resource-rich middle east. sounds like a solid plan to me.

heil zion!:party:

Sounds like a thrilling comic book. But if you were to actually read a history book, Israel has never been capable of joining the 'jewish-bank-controlled' allies in a war of any sort, but this is something you wouldn't have noticed since you're too busy looking for hooknoses behind everything. The Lebanon invasion by Israel in the late 70s was for instance a total disaster that advanced nothing for your international Jewish banks, and left Israel more vulnerable and entrenched in an absurd occupation. The American attempt to rescue that war lost 220 marines their lives. So how is this 'Israel conquers the middle east' plan working out then? The 1956 war over the Suez Canal was the last time that Israel was allied with the west in a war against Arabs. During the Gulf war the US couldn't even fly its fighters out of Israeli bases for fear of breaking the Arab coalition, most importantly Saudi Arabia. The US also has no interest in a smashed Palestine and has been one of the largest donors to the Arafat and Abbas-led Palestinian Authority, not to mention the fact that the US and Europe have often been on the side of Arab regimes against their own people or other peoples (the Iraq/Iran war for instance?) which hardly rings of a conspiracy against Arabs. America only now withdraws its support from the PA along with Europe because they don't think an organization bent on Jewish genocide in Israel should be tolerated (you however think they should succeed). America and Europe cooperate just as much with the Saudi security services as they do with the Mossad. It should also go without saying that the US, Britain, Europe and Japan have had effective control over the middle-east since the age of colonialism. It's something you have chosen to believe in. It's something that grips you to believe. Perhaps it tells you that you are a great man for discovering the truth about the 'people who killed Jesus', perhaps you want to look like an intellectual.

And for the record, in case you were insinuating that I was Jewish, I'm Lithuanian, Italian and German in heritage. Not everyone who thinks solidarity with Israel is an axiomatic position of the progressive side of humanity is a Jew you know.

[Dataika]

I thought that this was a Seinfeld joke.

[Bowza]

Gee maybe the European holocaust?

I really don't think thats a valid reason to decide that its ok to simply create a country smack dab where other people were living in. It was a bad decision and has been causing problems for the region since .

[Orochi Jeebus]

http://www.codoh.com/newsite/multimedia/

here's a video on the holocaust with solid evidence that casts considerable doubt on any authority who claims an extermination of the jews took place.

[Mixah]

http://www.codoh.com/newsite/multimedia/

here's a video on the holocaust with solid evidence that casts considerable doubt on any authority who claims an extermination of the jews took place.

you're a fucking douchebag

[NG1313]

I found them very interesting.

[Mixah]

i found them interesting too, BUT...

giving into tthe video as "THIS IS THE FACTS" is the same thing as not knowing the whole story of 9/11 and watching Farenheit and saying "THIS IS THE FACTS"... don't get me wrong, michael moore did a fantastic job with the movie, BUT, it wasn't the whole story. While he had the right idea, he missed stuff.

[Okazaki III]

Orochi - you got shit for brains. You need to stop surfing the net and do some real research that can substanciate your claims. And I don't mean a visit to your local library on a rainy Sunday but an actual study up to PhD level in history before you can even begin to speculate about what happened. Your shitty links from Google don't strengthen your arguments, but make you look like an idiot that is trying to cover up his lack of intelligence instead.

Alternatively, next time you feel like "OMFG IM TEH CLEVER RLY WANT SRK TO READ THIS", shove your fingers up ur ass until your desire to post random junk has gone away.

[NG1313]

Brainiac... if he were to get a PhD, everything would be based on the propaganda he claims it all is. The matter here is different sources. I thought the videos made some very strong points.

Mixah, he said they gave reason for reasonable doubt. Nothing else, as I understood.

[Okazaki III]

The point is that he is full of shit. If you're going to argue your case don't fucking Google for random shit, but put ur own effort in by studying up on it using academic resources (which are way more reliable than the stuff he is bringing fwd now).

If I were a mod I'd ban that fucker next time he posts a fucking link. Posters like him are the reason why you will never get a fucking political topic going on SRK.

[Okame]

If I were a mod I'd ban that fucker next time he posts a fucking link. Posters like him are the reason why you will never get a fucking political topic going on SRK.
You know, when I first saw this topic I got excited. Ah ha, I thought, an intelligent discussion on Iran!

Then I click on the post and see people posting links to Stormfront and holocaust denial bullshit, and it makes me not even want to post. The sheer level of idiocy in this topic is mind-boggling.

[Buck Jones]

^ I don't want to post either, except to say that your av is pretty cool.

[ninjabastard]

First off I want to apologizing for not seeing your post so you will have to forgive me on the late reply.


Yes there is a difference between fucking up and lying. Colin Powell going up to the U.N. and making a presentation that was filled with information that was known to be false is LYING (Rememer the "Slam Dunk" Case).
That was the sakey evidence that got used. The arab guys that spoke in the recording hadn't been confirmed where they were from or the authenticity of it. That along with other things.

The use of "slam dunk" also refers to the answer that Tenet gave when Bush asked how likely does Saddam have WMD's.


Saddam completely denied having WMD's and challenged our president to a live debate and our president refused.
Why the fuck would you talk with state that has a bad record of lying and causing trouble since the late 80's? It just gives legitmacy to his position and that he is the "rightful" ruler of the country. There is nothing to gain by doing that.

And bush is a horrible speaker, he'd just make himself like like a tard.


The Downing street memo clealy states that intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy of going to war with Iraq.
That would not surpise me since from Nov 2001 there was some general directions to the war in Iraq. The admin updated Iraqi war planes and acessed its military capacities for such a war 2 years before 2003.

What is difined as "fixed", the normal logisically stuff that would be needed for war? Or we need to find a way of going to war and look good doing it? Planning for war takes time, does that consituate a "fixed" policy for war? Perhaps you can tell since that's a vague term in how it could apply.


A few weeks ago another memo was leaked in which the president clearly approved the use of aircraft being painted and having U.N. logos being added to it and provoking Saddam to shoot the airplanes down in order to justify an invasion.
Got some links? I could see it happen though, we used unmarked airplanes for awhile before going into Vietnam. Alot of stuff I assume is done off the record.


Noone ever mentions the fact that the the "niger yellow cake documents" were complete and obvious forgeries.
I personally don't know what to think here. I don't like going to the conspircy angle. But, if something is so crapply forged that a IAEA guy can disprove it with a google search, it makes people wonder how the fuck it got so far. I'm not sure how creditibly you can say this is evidence of the adminstration lying. The issue looks too convoluted to say that this say anything for sure. Could be evidence of a lie, people pissed at Chaney, France, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery




You want me to cite good sources? How about the IAEA clearly stating in the weeks before the war that Iraq was not in posession of WMD's, What about Hans Blix clearly stating that Iraq was in full cooperation with the Inspections and that nothing illegal was being found,
Now that is bullshit. That report was a way of saying they found nothing but we don't know if that's everything. They cooperated but we're not fully sure they did. It was a report not to piss of anyone since it didn't say anything with complete certainty.



What about the House Intelligence COmmitees report "Iraq On The Record" which clearly states and proves that the president made intentionally misleading statements in order to get the public behind the war.
Got that report? That seems like a too strong a statement for a house commitee. The house is run by the GOP. Maybe they're trying to distance themselves from Iraq and the president, but it would hurt the party still.



People lay the blame on the CIA. That is complete and utter bullshit. The CIA clearly told the white house in 2002 that there were serious doubts about Iraqs WMD program. The State Department warned the white house about doubts on Iraqs WMD program,
CIA and State deparment are not a unified entity. There were disagreements within the intellegence commitee on what the intell was. I would blame the Bush for putting together a team who's purpose was to filiter through the info on Iraq which then pushed ambiguous information as fact. So I guess I would acquiese that point.


The IAEA reported SINCE 1997 and regaularly for a few years on that traq was not in posession of WMD's and to this day there has been no hard evidence to support the notion that Iraq was in posession of WMD's.
After 98, there were no inspection teams. Hence the paranoia.


ANd I'm supposed to believe that Bsh & CO. just messed up evern though everyone around them clearly told them that their case was flawed. Get the fuck outta here.
Why do you want to believe that they lied so bad? Would that make you justifable to say they are evil and that you can use that as a blanket for everything that goes wrong in government? If you look at that this from how governments functions, this doesn't seem that out of the norm. Shit breaks. FEMA, state and local government coordination during kartina was a great example. In Japan, during the Kyoto earthquake, LDP look liked tards for not responding well either. And the info the US had was also from other states and the UN. It wasn't just 2003 the intell was wrong, 1989 we were wrong too. The US didn't know that Iraq had avanced so far in its nuclear research. Now, just flip too little to too much. People get this idea that if we get rid of the "bad people" the system will be fine but ever stop to thing that it is the system that could cause alot of these problems?

If I blame Bush on anything, he didn't take the half-assed way of solving a problem, which means if something goes wrong, as it did, it blows up in his face. While Clinton's fire a few cruise missles here and there wasn't going to fix the problem, politically it's way safer.

You're looking at the Iraqi war based on the fact WMD's were the sole justification for war. It was what the public was sold on, but the Iraq war was partly about getting rid of an annoying regime before it could actually become a real threat with either WMD's or a real conventional army. It was I feel a preventive war - not preemptive since that's more an immediate threat. Preventive being that it's better to fight a war now since you might not have the chance later.

If i had to rank US' foriegn policy goals for Iraq it would go like this:

1) prevent Iraq from getting WMD's
2) prevent the build up of military
3) end the threat of iraq towards Isreal and the US
4) regime change
5) spread democracy, human right, etc. (I'd put that as a distance 5th. I don't think it really factored into calculations)

OK let's look at the options the US could have done:

do nothing - continue sanctions/containment
Would only slow the build up or military and wmd's but it would not prevent them. Saddam would still be in controll and sponsoring hamas to piss of Isreal. But, no nukes, no problem for the most part.

containment + UN inspections
Might get the 1st, military would still build up slowly, maybe the 3rd too. But it runs the risk of not working either since the inspections don't work if no one is putting any effort into having them work or try to undermind their ability to work

limited war - fire a few missles, bomb a few places
Get the 2nd and only temporarly slows the 3rd. Might get some headway on the WMD's. Doesn't do much either way.

preventive war
It gets all the US' major goals. The downside is that it gives bad PR, which i don't think the bush admin factored in as much they should have. The US knew that France and Russia might go against the US since they had oil contracts in Iraq. It had the most risk but at the same time the biggest payoff.

Depending on how you look at the options, you might calucalate the options on pay off, and in doing so preventive war would come out big. But, you calculate to minimize regret or pain felt from fucking up, limited war would come out. Inspections had the chance to work or fail if not kept up. Sanctions by themselves would be a good options if there are no WMD's but if Iraq did, that would have been really bad fuck up too. Therefore limited war, while it wouldn't solve the problem, it wouldn't have hurt for fucking up. There is the chance that it could prevent WMD's since Saddam could have gave up some of the WMD's to stop the bombing.

So how do you get the people on board for such a war? The American people by nature are isolationistic. What do you do? You can't sell them on the geopolical stuff that sure as hell didn't work in Vietnam. People say "why the fuck we were there?" all the time - half-assing kind of backfired on Jonson there. FDR had the same problem with WW2. He wanted to goto fight the Germans for a while but it wasn't untill the Japanese and the Germans did us the favor knocking on our door and declaring war did we respond.

Therefore, Bush would need to play up the immediatcy factor since a long-term problem means shit from election to election. Iraq was in non-complace with the UN resolution since they couldn't account for WMD's, though due to hillious reasons such as "oh shit it's the UN inspectors. Where should we dump this shit? Fuck let's dump this shit right here next to Saddam's palace and not tell him". But, in the end the "case" for war ends up being set to such a high standard that nothing short of WMD would have been accepted as justifiable to use as a pretense.

Now, does this mean bush lied to make such a war happend? I still feel Bush didn't. If Bush knew that were no WMD's, I don't think the risk/payoff would be enough in his mind. 9/11 would have probably raised the importance of preventing WMD's, which might not have been as high on the list of goals before. Now, this could all be wrong since these are my thoughts on how the decision to goto war was made but I feel this is a pretty good model overall.

The intell gave more of possiblity that WMD's existed and everyone was in "can't have another 9/11, can't have another 9/11" mode so I think the bush admin were taking the rather be safe then sorry route. It might have looked like a feasble idea after 9/11 but i think bush would have backed down now knowing what he does. The other goals were nice, howevever I don't think it would have be enough to warrent going to war. But that is one of risks which always occurs when you goto war. Things don't always turn out as you plan.

[Hokuto no Jeffro]

The point is that he is full of shit. If you're going to argue your case don't fucking Google for random shit, but put ur own effort in by studying up on it using academic resources (which are way more reliable than the stuff he is bringing fwd now).

If I were a mod I'd ban that fucker next time he posts a fucking link. Posters like him are the reason why you will never get a fucking political topic going on SRK.
Why didn't anyone listen to me at the beginning of the thread!?

[Naslectronical]

*snip*

Iraq a threat to the US?

How?

The US annihilated the Iraqi army even when it was at full strength and had WMD's. Iraq was militarily the weakest nation in its region. The most it could ever do was invade Kuwait.

I may not ever agree with you, but I know that you aren't stupid.. This war had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat or WMD's. It had to do with benifiting Bush and his rich friends financially, and with the imperialistic ambitions of the US.

Why do you think the reasons for going to war kept changing? First, it was that Iraq had a link to Al Qaeda and something to do with 9/11. Then, when that was debunked, it was "Saddamn Hussein and the search for WMD's." When none were found, it was "Operation Iraqi freedom" and "let's free the poor people from the clutches of a ruthless dictator."(As if the US gives two hoots about people who are oppressed by dictators)

Seriously, the Bush administration itself said in 2001 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Then, they appeared out of thin air in 2002. Then, in 2003, after the US-led invasion, they up and vanished just like a piss in the swimming pool.

Even if you truly feel that the invasion was fully justified, that didn't make it sensible or wise. The Bush administration failed to think about what it was going to after the war part was over, nor did it bother to come up with an exit strategy should things go wrong, like they are now.

Instead, it seemed to think that the Iraqi people would greet an invading army as liberators and throw roses at its feet, a democracy would just spawn from the wake of destruction, and everything would be paradise.

Now, the US is bogged down in a conflict that has turned Iraq into a war-torn hell with extremist coming from all over the region to practice their bomb-making skills.

The US will never defeat this insurgency, because the presence of the US army is what's causing it. Every time they fight against it, they kill more innocent people and destroy more homes, businesses, etc(Fallujah, anyone?) and as a result, there are more insurgents. The US army is doing their recruiting for them.

This is exactly the reason that the first Bush didn't go all the way to Baghdad.

[ninjabastard]

Iraq a threat to the US?

How?

Good point, I think should reevaluate my use of "threat" to the US. Maybe long-term ability to attack, hostile intentions or something along those lines. When I use threat, I mean if Iraq had the ability to use force, they would. This is like a 10-20 year thing. Which is why I refered to this war as a preventive war. Iraq was not an immiedate threat, which is what a preemptive war is, Iraq was a threat down the line.

FDR by some reports, my US foriegn policy proff for one, forced Japan to attack since it was either give up China for US oil or attack the US to get to the Dutch Indies. My proff claims that FDR knew that if Japan declared war so would Germany. I'm not about to agree full heartly with his argument but it does have some logic to it. He was arguing that the US wanted to attack while it could to prevent a strong Germany later.


Why do you think the reasons for going to war kept changing? First, it was that Iraq had a link to Al Qaeda and something to do with 9/11. Then, when that was debunked, it was "Saddamn Hussein and the search for WMD's." When none were found, it was "Operation Iraqi freedom" and "let's free the poor people from the clutches of a ruthless dictator."(As if the US gives two hoots about people who are oppressed by dictators)

Seriously, the Bush administration itself said in 2001 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Then, they appeared out of thin air in 2002. Then, in 2003, after the US-led invasion, they up and vanished just like a piss in the swimming pool.

What i think was happening was more going down the list of things to sell the war. As one after the other got shot down, they used others. When going to war it's very important to have muliple reason for it to win over people of various ideologies. Eventually it got down to human rights since everything else ended up wrong. When the government decided on war, it then became a way of getting the people on board.

Remember, you are never wrong in politics, you must simply find the reason why you are right.

But, in the end, the Iraq war was not that wise. Was this due to not taking account of all the options? Incomplete intell? Personality? People filitering information in a way to suit their own goals? I'll probably have a more complete answer in a couple of months after i get done with my decision making course and I write the required paper on the decision making process leading up to iraq.



Even if you truly feel that the invasion was fully justified, that didn't make it sensible or wise. The Bush administration failed to think about what it was going to after the war part was over, nor did it bother to come up with an exit strategy should things go wrong, like they are now. Instead, it seemed to think that the Iraqi people would greet an invading army as liberators and throw roses at its feet, a democracy would just spawn from the wake of destruction, and everything would be paradise.
I agree. This is kind of age old problem though. The US has a tendcy to "Fight dragons abroad" - old quote from John Qunicy Adams. There is a tendecy to see themselves as the bringers of civilization. In, a lot of ways, the US acts like Rome does.

I also figured it would take 5 or so years to set up a government. Japan took 7 and i think german is around 4-5. But, we still got troops in Japan and Germany, though for other reasons nowadays.


Now, the US is bogged down in a conflict that has turned Iraq into a war-torn hell with extremist coming from all over the region to practice their bomb-making skills.

The US will never defeat this insurgency, because the presence of the US army is what's causing it. Every time they fight against it, they kill more innocent people and destroy more homes, businesses, etc(Fallujah, anyone?) and as a result, there are more insurgents. The US army is doing their recruiting for them.
Problem is there is no government still in Iraq. It would reign in some of the extremist tensions if people felt that the government represented them and they had a piece in the system. The hamas election was a good thing because it gave clarity of the what the people wanted and could then figure out what we need fix. It was just retarded of the Suni's to not even show up to vote. But i guess that comes from the feeling of becoming the minority power.

Something has got to give. Either the Suni's, shia, and kurd get along or there's going to be all out civil war - the current stuff has not risen to the lvl of civil war yet. They came close about month ago.


This is exactly the reason that the first Bush didn't go all the way to Baghdad.
Actually it was because the checks stop coming in to finance the war. We had a defict so we made everyone else pay for the war and when we got done pushing Iraq out of Kawatt, everyone is like "ok that's good. Fuck, we aien't paying anymore".

I think if Iraq becomes a prosperious democratic country that would be a pretty good payoff. It would make the other mid-east states see the fact that it is possible to be an arab state, be a US ally and come out well. The people would demand more of there government then. Freidman has some good stuff on this concept but his stuff gets a little to intellectual junk foodish.

Anyway, I'm hoping the whole place doesn't goto hell but I remain skeptical.

[Naslectronical]

Good point, I think should have reevaluate my use of "threat" to the US. Maybe long-term ability to attack, hostile intentions or something along those lines. When I use threat, I mean if Iraq had the ability to use force, they would. This is like a 10-20 year thing. Which is why I refered to this war as a preventive war. Iraq was not an immiedate threat, which is what a preemptive war is, Iraq was a threat down the line.

I see what you're trying to see, however:

1) Did it pose enough of a threat to warrant what's happening now? Such as the half trillion dollars or the tens of thousands of deaths of the stretching thin of the US military?

2) If the US can use a supposed threat 10-20 years from now as a reason for an invasion and occupation of a foreign country, what's to stop other countries from doing it as well?



What i think was happening was more going down the list of things to sell the war. As one after the other got shot down, they used others. When going to war it's very important to have muliple reason for it to win over people of various ideologies. Eventually it got down to human rights since everything else ended up wrong. When the government decided on war, it then became a way of getting the people on board.

Remember, you are never wrong in politics, you must simply find the reason why you are right.

I know it's all politics and that the government has to "sell" the war, but that doesn't change the fact that the reasons were exaggerations and downright falsehoods that were used to mislead the people. In short, they couldn't tell the public about the real reasons.



FDR by some reports, my US foriegn policy proff for one, forced Japan to attack since it was either give up China for US oil or attack the US to get to the Dutch Indies. My proff claims that FDR knew that if Japan declared war so would Germany. I'm not about to agree full heartly with his argument but it does have some logic to it. He was arguing that the US wanted to attack while it could to prevent a strong Germany later.

But, in the end, the Iraq war was not that wise. Was this due to not taking account of all the options? Incomplete intell? Personality? People filitering information in a way to suit their own goals? I'll probably have a more complete answer in a couple of months after i get done with my decision making course and I write the required paper on the decision making process leading up to iraq.

I don't agree with that argument either, because if he wanted to make a case for war against Germany, there was very strong Nazi influence in Latin America, and there was also the threat to shipping lanes because of German u-boats.

Hitler was not obligated to declare was against the US under the tri-partite pact that was signed with Japan and Italy. Most think that he declared war to get Japan to join him against the Soviet Union, which is also odd, because Germany was kicking their brains out.



I agree. This is kind of age old problem though. The US has a tendcy to "Fight dragons abroad" - old quote from John Qunicy Adams. There is a tendecy to see themselves as the bringers of civilization. In, a lot of ways, the US acts like Rome does.

I also figured it would take 5 or so years to set up a government. Japan took 7 and i think german is around 4-5. But, we still got troops in Japan and Germany, though for other reasons nowadays.

The difference is that there had been a lot more progress with Germany and Japan at this point. There wasn't a huge insurgency in either countriy, nor were there several bombings on a daily basis or peoples' heads being chopped off.

The United States also had much better reasons to be in those countries and see it through to the end.



Problem is there is no government still in Iraq. It would reign in some of the extremist tensions if people felt that the government represented them and they had a piece in the system. The hamas election was a good thing because it gave clarity of the what the people want and could then figure out what we do need to fix. It was just retarded of the Suni's to not even show up to vote. But i guess that comes from the feeling of becoming the minority power.

The problem is that everyone knows it will be a government that's there to do the bidding of the US, or atleast this is just what they think.



Actually it was because the checks stop coming in to finance the war. We had a defict so we made everyone else pay for the war and when we got done pushing Iraq out of Kawatt, everyone is like "ok that's good. Fuck, we aien't paying anymore".

A remember a quote of him stating what I said as the reason. It should be easy to find via Google, and I'd post it up, but Kingdom Hearts 2 is burning a whole in its case:razzy:



I think if Iraq becomes a prosperious democratic country that would be a pretty good payoff. It make the other mid-east states see the fact that it is possible to be an arab state, be a US ally and come out well. The people would demand more of there government then. Freidman has some good stuff on this concept but his stuff gets a little to intellectual junk foodish.

Anyway, I'm hoping the whole place doesn't goto hell but I remain skeptical.

If arab nations are going to become prosperous democratic countries, then the people have to do it themselves. Other countries invading and trying to install governments just looks like imperialism.

[TSC]

I normally dont weigh in on these topics as they always end up rather heated. However after reading this comment below I just had to jump in...


4) Let Iran have the nukes - in actuallity this isn't a bad option. Since Iran has show itself willing to with the US in both Afgainistand and Iraq. They released a terrorist in protest of the Axis of evil speech and other then a few other instances they've been pretty good for the most part. Still runs the risk of trading nuclear tech but i don't feel that's as likely as say north korea. There is of course the destablizing effect on the Mid-East also. It is however an option I think that the US might be able to live with in a worst case scenerio.


OMFG, you are without a doubt a flaming moron. Let Iran have a "nuke"?... an utterly ridiculous, dangerous and completely idiotic suggestion. That paragraph is so wrong on so many different levels that it shows me how naive and ignorant you are on this whole matter. I should be shocked reading this but I guess we live in a strange world so I guess I just have to accept that there are actually people out there like yourself who would actually even consider such a shocking option. I would rather Iraq volume 2 than giving that madman in Iran the right to have nuclear weapons... and that is saying something considering how much of a mess Iraq currently is.

Anyway I am not even going to bother ridiculing each point, it is not worth my effort.

[FurryCurry]

I think if Iraq becomes a prosperious democratic country that would be a pretty good payoff. It would make the other mid-east states see the fact that it is possible to be an arab state, be a US ally and come out well. The people would demand more of there government then. Freidman has some good stuff on this concept but his stuff gets a little to intellectual junk foodish.

Anyway, I'm hoping the whole place doesn't goto hell but I remain skeptical.


That would be a really nice ending to all of this in a decade's time.

There's really no reason why any person, male or female, shouldn't have basic human rights in this day and age (outside of prisoners).

[ninjabastard]

I normally dont weigh in on these topics as they always end up rather heated. However after reading this comment below I just had to jump in...



OMFG, you are without a doubt a flaming moron. Let Iran have a "nuke"?... an utterly ridiculous, dangerous and completely idiotic suggestion. That paragraph is so wrong on so many different levels that it shows me how naive and ignorant you are on this whole matter. I should be shocked reading this but I guess we live in a strange world so I guess I just have to accept that there are actually people out there like yourself who would actually even consider such a shocking option. I would rather Iraq volume 2 than giving that madman in Iran the right to have nuclear weapons... and that is saying something considering how much of a mess Iraq currently is.

Anyway I am not even going to bother ridiculing each point, it is not worth my effort.
The quesion is if Iran is going to use a nuclear weapon. Look if the US could, we would like Iran to not have nukes but it's a "can live with option". I've read alot about what has been going on in Iran and how it has helping out in Afganistand and in Iraq. They don't want a civil war as much as we do. I'm not saying doing nothing is the best option but it is a "liveable" option. I could be wrong. Iran could lunch a nuke to Isreal and leak nuclear tech to terrorist groups but I don't think they're that stupid. If the US found out that Iran gave nukes to a terrorist group, which used them on US or within the nuclear security umbrella, we'd nuke them. More likey they'll use the nuke for a more agressive foriegn policy and a chance to mix up the regional balance of power. Probably lead to an arms race though.

You don't want to use the do nothing option but that is a worst case scenerio. I already stated I think that the threat of force + economic incentives, e.g. allowing foriegn investment, was the best option. There is a battle between the hard liners and reformists in Iran. Basically, the hardliners want nukes for protection from the US and prestige. Now the reformers know that the Iranian econ isn't doing well and they need foriegn investment to maintain growth. They would work with the US for economic incentives. This isn't a simple blow them up here. The plants are hidden and we can't fight another war. The Europeans don't want to use force and aren't coordinating with the US. You got limited options, not always the best options.

Nas: I'm done now. I'm behind on reading and I've played around too much today.

1) no, Iraq was a waste of money in the long run, unless we get democratic gov but that's like getting 50-60% back after lossing almost everything. There is a chance Iraq would have gotten WMD's down the line. Was it worth the money knowing what we know now? No. i think sanctions + inspections would have worked. But you would need a guarantee from the Europeans to maintain them though since that was problem in the 90's.

2) Either US is going to say others can't do it flat out or it will create a norm of it being used in a certain way. To create a norm like that you need to get a major powers together (Nato+Japan+China+india+russia) and have them agree on it. The downside is the US gets less controll over its policy, upside less costs. Also getting everyone to agree on something is a bitch. I can link an article on that if you want. You might agree with him more than me but I see some of the logic in it.


The difference is that there had been a lot more progress with Germany and Japan at this point. There wasn't a huge insurgency in either countriy, nor were there several bombings on a daily basis or peoples' heads being chopped off.

The United States also had much better reasons to be in those countries and see it through to the end.
We did nuke japan and level germany. I think one reason you had less insurgency was because the power of state was centralized and was not as spread out across groups like in Iraq. And i concur there was a more immiedate cause for fighting WW2.


The problem is that everyone knows it will be a government that's there to do the bidding of the US, or atleast this is just what they think.
Eh same problem in Japan post war. Even after we left in 52, it wasn't untill about late 60's- 70's did japan calm down about the US. The security tready crisis in 1960 was a pretty big thing.


A remember a quote of him stating what I said as the reason. It should be easy to find via Google, and I'd post it up, but Kingdom Hearts 2 is burning a whole in its case
I so wish I had enough time to play KH2. I got passed the boring intro to get Sora and did a couple of lvl's but i just don't have time. I'm annoyed that the gumi ships are back again.


If arab nations are going to become prosperous democratic countries, then the people have to do it themselves. Other countries invading and trying to install governments just looks like imperialism.
I said the US acts like Rome. I could write alot about empires and how the US is acting compared to Britain and Rome. But, that's a lot of writing to argue.

[AHVB]

"Why the fuck would you talk with state that has a bad record of lying and causing trouble since the late 80's? It just gives legitmacy to his position and that he is the "rightful" ruler of the country. There is nothing to gain by doing that."

Why not? We didn't "talk" and look how that turned out.



"That would not surpise me since from Nov 2001 there was some general directions to the war in Iraq. The admin updated Iraqi war planes and acessed its military capacities for such a war 2 years before 2003. "

I didnt explain it correcntly. What the Downing street memo states is that facts and intelligence were being "fixed".



Got some links? I could see it happen though, we used unmarked airplanes for awhile before going into Vietnam. Alot of stuff I assume is done off the record.

Sure Here are many sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=44d739f990347f03&ex=1145419200
New York Times *Needs Registration*

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-WarPlans.wmv
MSNBC *paste in Windows Media Player

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11766.htm
Video From British News *Scroll Down




I personally don't know what to think here. I don't like going to the conspircy angle. But, if something is so crapply forged that a IAEA guy can disprove it with a google search, it makes people wonder how the fuck it got so far. I'm not sure how creditibly you can say this is evidence of the adminstration lying. The issue looks too convoluted to say that this say anything for sure. Could be evidence of a lie, people pissed at Chaney, France, etc.

How it got so far, Just look at what happened with the Valerie Plame situation.



"Now that is bullshit. That report was a way of saying they found nothing but we don't know if that's everything. They cooperated but we're not fully sure they did. It was a report not to piss of anyone since it didn't say anything with complete certainty."

We don't know and again, there were no WMD's and no factual evidence to support the notion that there were wmd's. They seemed to have been giving complete cooperation, blix said this himself. Wll we didnt know everything, but eh there were no WMD's. Do the math.




"Got that report? That seems like a too strong a statement for a house commitee. The house is run by the GOP. Maybe they're trying to distance themselves from Iraq and the president, but it would hurt the party still. "

Yes I Do:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf




"CIA and State deparment are not a unified entity. There were disagreements within the intellegence commitee on what the intell was. I would blame the Bush for putting together a team who's purpose was to filiter through the info on Iraq which then pushed ambiguous information as fact. So I guess I would acquiese that point."

There was one that was created. THe Office of special plans, which was infiltrated by an israeli spy.



After 98, there were no inspection teams. Hence the paranoia."

"Why do you want to believe that they lied so bad? Would that make you justifable to say they are evil and that you can use that as a blanket for everything that goes wrong in government? If you look at that this from how governments functions, this doesn't seem that out of the norm. Shit breaks. FEMA, state and local government coordination during kartina was a great example. In Japan, during the Kyoto earthquake, LDP look liked tards for not responding well either. And the info the US had was also from other states and the UN. It wasn't just 2003 the intell was wrong, 1989 we were wrong too. The US didn't know that Iraq had avanced so far in its nuclear research. Now, just flip too little to too much. People get this idea that if we get rid of the "bad people" the system will be fine but ever stop to thing that it is the system that could cause alot of these problems?"

I don't "want" to believe anything. I go by what I see man. I don't make any of this up. It is inconcieveable to believe that once you add the hundreds if not thousands of delibarete lies and contradictorial comments and representation of "facts" by the administration that you won't conclude that there was no foul play on the admnistrations behalf.



"You're looking at the Iraqi war based on the fact WMD's were the sole justification for war. It was what the public was sold on, but the Iraq war was partly about getting rid of an annoying regime before it could actually become a real threat with either WMD's or a real conventional army. It was I feel a preventive war - not preemptive since that's more an immediate threat. Preventive being that it's better to fight a war now since you might not have the chance later. "

They werent a current nor potential threat. There was absolutely no solid evidence to support the notion that Iraq was a threat. It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the "facts" given to us about Saddams WMD program were false. How is a preemptive or preventive war justified in any way if there is absolutely NO evidence to support the "fact" that the other party was ABLE to attack, PLANNING to attack, the WEAPONS to attack or even had the CAPABILITY to attack.

[AHVB]

Bump

[AHVB]

*jacked*




LOU DOBBS AND IRAN'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

Iran is not known to possess any weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



Iran is a signatory state of the NPT (Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty) and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment program, ostensibly for its civilian nuclear energy program, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT.



The treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market.



Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty. India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, although it is not known to have conducted tests.



The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons,

although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli nuclear expert Mordechai Vanunu -- later abducted and jailed by Israel -- revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986

[Jion_Wansu]

Fcuk Iran's Leadership!!!

The people will revolt against Iran and the international community will help!!!

[NeoBlood]

Man, I saw a video today of a woman who was shot in Iran just because she was watching the riots. She was with her father who cried out while holding on to her body. If theres any SRKers in Iran, I hope you guys are safe.

[studtrooper]

I must admit this riot stuff is lasting a lot longer than I thought it would. Tienanmen Square part II? It probably won't happen, but if the people of Iran somehow overthrow their tyrannical dictators and go for some sort of democracy... damn. The middle east may have some hope yet.

[av2k]

Man, I saw a video today of a woman who was shot in Iran just because she was watching the riots. She was with her father who cried out while holding on to her body. If theres any SRKers in Iran, I hope you guys are safe.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/21/2009-06-21_neda_young_girl_killed_in_iran.html

She has become the symbol of the freedom movement in Iran.. her name ironically means "voice" or "call" in farsi.

Very tragic watching the video =\ which can be found anywhere, even on youtube.

[Epicurus]

Iran will remain a theocracy. All this squabbling over the president is irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

[CrotchMonkey]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/21/2009-06-21_neda_young_girl_killed_in_iran.html

She has become the symbol of the freedom movement in Iran.. her name ironically means "voice" or "call" in farsi.

Very tragic watching the video =\ which can be found anywhere, even on youtube.

I couldn't sleep.

[Joe The Condor]

Let's get Korea to nuke the middle east.

[Manx]

Damn you for making me thing AHVB was back.

[majeh]

Damn you for making me thing AHVB was back.

why was he banned in the first place?

[Manx]

Totally forgot, but I think it had something to do with attacking everyone, mods included, for disagreeing with his radical views.