PDA

View Full Version : Neocons losing their grip on power - and reality


Taco John
12-10-2007, 11:18 PM
This is an amusing article... It's a nice triumph for the good guys in this country to see the evil ones (especially Podhoretz, who I definitely view as an evil, putrid man) have to go into over drive spinning this thing. The American people must remain vigilant, however. These terrorist don't want to lose their grip on power, and will manufacture the opportunity to strike Iran if need be.


No Iran Attack? Don't be so sure...
by Justin Raimondo

Global Research, December 8, 2007
Antiwar.com - 2007-12-05


Email this article to a friend
Print this article


The release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program has everyone breathing a sigh of relief. According to our best intelligence, the Iranians stopped their weapons program in 2003. The liberal pundits and the more reasonable Sullivanesque conservatives are shouting "Hallelujah!" War has been averted! My response: not so fast.

Before we segue into all the reasons why we shouldn't be letting our guard down, however, let's take a moment or three to savor the War Party's distress. This morning's edition of National Review Online is a veritable cornucopia of spittle-on-the-screen invective. There's a whole section devoted to debunking the debunkers, and each and every article is a study in sophistry elevated almost to an art form.

Michael Ledeen avers that since "you can't prove a negative," the NIE is wrong. Thus, there is no need for any empirical evidence, since, after all, you can't be 100 percent certain, so Iran is guilty as a given. And weren't these the same guys who thought Iraq had WMD? What Ledeen fails to mention is that he and his gang agreed with that assessment, but in the solipsistic universe of the neocons, a different set of rules applies.

Victor Davis Hanson is uncharacteristically laconic. Instead of the usual 1,200 words detailing why the failure to strike Iran yesterday will lead to the Decline of the West and the Victory of Islamofascism, we get little more than 200 words of self-contradicting evasions: the NIE report, taken at face value, proves the Iraq war was a success – after all, it succeeded in deterring the Iranians, who would have gone nuclear had they not witnessed the wrath of the Americans up close. He then turns around, however, and refutes himself by smugly asking us to "expect a variety of rebuttals to this assurance that for 4 years the Iranians haven't gotten much closer to producing weapons grade materials." So, then, the Iraq war did not sufficiently impress the Iranians to divert them from going down the nuclear road? Which is it?

On a scale of one to 10 – one meaning Ledeenian incoherence and 10 meaning a chameleon-like ability to mimic rationality – I give Michael Rubin a nine. He's a clever boy who can think of six different reasons why "no" means "yes."

What about "the Syrian episode," Rubin asks: doesn't that prove the Iranians are going after nukes without having to produce one themselves? But it proves nothing of the kind. "The Syrian episode" is an elaborate hoax carried out by the one country that has everything to gain by provoking war between the U.S. and Iran. The best analysis I've seen describes the Dair-el-Zor strike as an attack on a giant underground weapons depot, where medium- and long-range missiles bought from North Korea and Iran are stored. My best guess is that Israel's amen corner in the national security bureaucracy saw the NIE coming and engineered the Israeli strike to raise the possibility of imported nukes.

Forgetting that the NIE is supposed to be entirely wrong, Rubin avers that it proves "pressure works" and that it's time "for another round of sanctions" on Tehran. If they do what we want, punish them. And if they don't, punish them some more. This is the neocon prescription: torture the world, and don't let up when they scream – and never take yes for an answer.

Rubin has all the talking points laid out like pearls on a string: if they stopped in 2003, then weren't they talking about the "dialogue of civilizations" in somewhat less than good faith? Except we don't know how advanced that program was, or how seriously they took it, and, in any case, as things now stand, they won't have an operable nuke for at least a decade. Evading this vital piece of information is the whole point of Rubin's Olympic-level display of verbal gymnastics.

The best defense being a good offense, Rubin comes up with this: "Will the analysts who agreed with Iran come clean and explain how they got it wrong?" Who are these "analysts," and how, exactly, did they "get it wrong"? No one said the Iranians didn't have nuclear aspirations. What the analysts inside the government and in the non-neocon think-tanks were saying, and continue to say, is that the Iranians aren't even close to going nuclear, that they've had technical difficulties and just don't have the capacity at present. There is no imminent threat, no need to act, no reason to put a military strike against Iran "on the table," as have all the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates except Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

According to Rubin, it wasn't the alarmists like himself who got it wrong: the Iranians are inveterate liars and can't be trusted under any circumstances. What's difficult for the neocons at this point is to transfer the liar-liar-pants-on-fire epithet to our own government. Are they now saying we can't trust the CIA, the DIA, and the rest any more than we trust the Iranian mullahs? Has the American intelligence community been infiltrated by the Revolutionary Guards? Good luck with that one, guys…

Oh, this is truly a comedic situation, and I just can't help taking an inordinate amount of pleasure in listening to the chorus of outrage that has greeted the NIE in neocon-land. It's like music to my ears! Ah, but I'm saving the best – Norman Podhoretz, obviously – for last. For now, we'll just have to content ourselves with the second- and third-tier neocon hacks at NRO and the Weekly Standard. I'm just getting warmed up…

I had an especially good laugh over Frank Gaffney's contribution, which dismisses the NIE with the assertion that, since no one "outside a very small circle in Iran has certain knowledge about the current state of Iran's nuclear-weapons program," therefore "we had better be prepared to use military force." In Gaffney's world, life is risky: if you can't prove you aren't a terrorist, then get ready for Guantanamo. Countries have it worse. Washington must know for certain that a given country isn't about to nuke Washington, and they're guilty until proven innocent. If you're the leader of a Muslim nation in the Middle East with a long history of hostility to Israel, expect an attack at any moment.

Poor Seth Leibsohn is beside himself. He's so distraught by the NIE that he does us all a service by compiling a wide range of sources for the report's conclusions. The New York Times attributes the estimate to "new information obtained from covert sources over the summer," the Washington Post says it was "intercepted calls between Iranian military commanders, that steadily chipped away at the earlier assessment," the Washington Times points to the defection of "a senior Iranian official, Ali Rez Asgari," who "defected to the West during a visit to Turkey in February." USA Today, on the other hand, somewhat vaguely claims it was "news photos" that played a major role in turning the spooks around. "Maybe it's all of this," Leibsohn concludes, to which one can only add: Duh!

The Weekly Standard runs one Thomas Joscelyn, a blogger associated with fringe neocon David Horowitz and his David Horowitz Freedom Center. As a self-proclaimed "terrorism expert," Joscelyn had the honor of being cited by Rush Limbaugh recently for "proving" that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden really were in cahoots, in spite of the National Commission on 9/11's conclusion that no such links existed. He demands that the intelligence community immediately release to him the evidence for its conclusions – this in spite of his acknowledgment, in the beginning of his piece, that it can and should do no such thing.

The NIE seems to have unhinged the lesser neocons, who are reduced to the sort of noises a small mammal makes when cornered. Norman Podhoretz, however, is quite a different story: his contribution to the "debate" is a perfect gem of the purest nihilism, a textbook example of Bizarro World logic. According to Podhoretz, since the last NIE was wrong, this one cannot be right. They were wrong then, he wails, so how can we trust them now? This principle, applied to, say, the realm of science, would ensure that no progress, no advance on the road to truth, no technological or theoretical innovation would ever be possible, because, after all, scientists have been wrong before. But truth is not Podhoretz's concern: he's already determined, a priori, that the truth is whatever he says it is.

This kind of radical subjectivism leads naturally to an accusation that the whole thing is a political ploy by Bush-haters in the national security bureaucracy who are sabotaging the lovely war he thought he talked the president into. Podhoretz has "dark suspicions," he confides, that the intelligence community is "bending over backwards" to avoid the mistakes it made during the run-up to war with Iraq. Naturally, he avoids mentioning that he, Norman Podhoretz, was just as wrong as they were, if not more so – so why, given his own Bizarro World logic, should we believe anything he says?

According to Norm, it wasn't the Iranians who succumbed to pressure from the international community to end their nuclear weapons program, it was the intelligence community that caved in to pressure in producing this NIE. Intercepts, defectors, news photos, whatever – he isn't interested. The whole thing is a plot by the advocates of "appeasement" to undermine the sacred goal of killing thousands of Iranians and embroiling us in another war in the Middle East.

Okay, that was fun, now wasn't it? Yet there is a price to pay for all this glorious gloating – all pleasures, my Catholic conscience tells me, come with a price. A number of commentators are now certain that, as Fred Kaplan puts it, "If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero."

If only it were so.

The Iranian nuclear issue has always been a slow-burning fuse. It took the neocons a good decade to gin up the invasion of Iraq and frame the Ba'athist regime on charges of covert WMD: taking on the much more formidable Persians, in the face of a more skeptical public, naturally requires an even greater effort. Think of it as a long-term project, one that has been set back for the moment – but the damage isn't irreparable. This NIE can always be revised, although we can say with confidence that the thorough debunking undertaken by the intelligence community in this instance has thrown the War Party on the defensive. Hence the howls of rage coming from the peanut gallery.

However, the nuclear issue has never been the primary thrust of the neocons' case for war with Iran: far more important has been the accusation that we are already at war with Iran because they're supposedly funding, harboring, and directing "terrorist" activities against U.S. troops in Iraq. According to what the administration has been saying for many months, the Iranians are killing U.S. soldiers – so when are we going to take them out? Hillary Clinton, too, is asking this question: that's why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to be an official "terrorist" organization, the only time a military component of a foreign regime has been so defined. Kyl-Lieberman will give the president full authority to engage in "hot pursuit" and precipitate a cross-border incident with Iran that could easily escalate into a full-scale military conflict.

It's a very long Iranian-Iraqi border that snakes through every enclave of ethno-religious tension in the region. Somewhere in that vast and volatile wilderness the first shots of what George W. Bush warns is going to be World War III will be fired: it's the most likely scenario, far more plausible and defensible than a strike at what the administration claims are nuclear facilities in or near heavily populated Iranian cities.

War with Iran is no less likely now than it was last week, last month, or last year. Indeed, it is conceivable that the chances of just such a provocation occurring sometime before we get a new president have increased, precisely because the War Party has been dealt such a devastating setback on the nuclear front. Desperation makes people do very odd things, and in this case I would reverse one of Victor Davis Hanson and Michael Rubin's arguments and apply it to those seemingly intent on taking us into yet another disastrous war, including the president.

Hanson and Rubin argue that the Iranians are not entirely of sound mind, that all that stuff about the Twelfth Imam returning indicates an irrational millennialism that can only end in a nuclear conflagration. In short, the Iranians are crazy.

I suggest Rubin, Podhoretz, et al., take a good, long look in the mirror. Unlike Iran's hardliners, ours are openly calling for war. As crazy as Ahmadinejad and his pals may be, Podhoretz and his pals are even wackier.

I'd sure like to believe that the relatively rational sectors of our government – the professional intelligence analysts, career diplomats, and assorted "realists" in the national security bureaucracy – have succeeded in putting a stake through the heart of the neocons and spiking the much-rumored war plans of this administration. Unfortunately, I owe it to my readers to tell it like it is: don't break out the champagne just yet. Oh, and keep your eye on the Iran-Iraq border, including the somewhat blurry line of demarcation in the Gulf. We aren't in the clear yet, not by a long shot, and we won't be until all U.S. troops are out of Iraq.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7567

patteeu
12-11-2007, 07:36 AM
Victor Davis Hanson is uncharacteristically laconic. Instead of the usual 1,200 words detailing why the failure to strike Iran yesterday will lead to the Decline of the West and the Victory of Islamofascism, we get little more than 200 words of self-contradicting evasions: the NIE report, taken at face value, proves the Iraq war was a success – after all, it succeeded in deterring the Iranians, who would have gone nuclear had they not witnessed the wrath of the Americans up close. He then turns around, however, and refutes himself by smugly asking us to "expect a variety of rebuttals to this assurance that for 4 years the Iranians haven't gotten much closer to producing weapons grade materials." So, then, the Iraq war did not sufficiently impress the Iranians to divert them from going down the nuclear road? Which is it?

This is easy. Assuming the NIE is right that Iran suspended it's covert nuclear weapons program in 2003:

The impressiveness of the initial victory over Saddam's regime led the Iranian regime to suspend it's nuclear weapons program in 2003 because they believed that they could be next in line.
Subsequent difficulties in Iraq gave Iran some confidence that it could continue it's pursuit of nuclear weapons technology through it's overt enrichment program (at a minimum) and possibly through a restarted or parallel covert weapons program with less risk of reprisal.


And the corollary to these two points is that our success in Iraq is essential to re-implant the idea that the US means business in the minds of Iran's leaders. We also need less of this "no need for war now" talk to keep the threat of military force credible. With any luck, military force won't be required if we follow this path. If we step back and assure the Iranians that we aren't a threat to them, there's no reason for them to give up their ambitions for nuclear weapons.

patteeu
12-11-2007, 07:51 AM
Wow, I just finished reading that and it was little more than name calling and absurd characterization. But this sentence, in particular, struck me as odd:

This NIE can always be revised, although we can say with confidence that the thorough debunking undertaken by the intelligence community in this instance has thrown the War Party on the defensive.

Thorough debunking? Did he even read the NIE? There is no thorough debunking. The NIE doesn't claim the Iranians have stopped their enrichment efforts. Instead, it ignores those efforts.

BucEyedPea
12-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Using force on Iraq proves nothing. Sabre rattling like RReagan had done in the past would have done the same thing without all that blood, loss of American lives and treasure spent. RR ended the Cold War without starting an aggressive war...Bush coulda have achieved the same results. The Iranians offered to put everything on the table Israel, Hezbollah and questions about it's nuke program BEFORE we went into Iraq in 2003 as per the Swiss ambassador.
This is FACT. No blood-thirsty neo-con will ever admit it though. It's human nature to justify a crime.

Besides, there's more to this story. Iran may have never had such a program.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 09:44 AM
Using force on Iraq proves nothing. Sabre rattling like RReagan had done in the past would have done the same thing without all that blood, loss of American lives and treasure spent. RR ended the Cold War without starting an aggressive war...Bush coulda have achieved the same results. The Iranians offered to put everything on the table Israel, Hezbollah and questions about it's nuke program BEFORE we went into Iraq in 2003 as per the Swiss ambassador.
This is FACT. No blood-thirsty neo-con will ever admit it though. It's human nature to justify a crime.

Besides, there's more to this story. Iran may have never had such a program.

Back on the koolaid I see.

Show us the link that proves the last statement.

Stand back all, this should be good!

jAZ
12-11-2007, 10:09 AM
Thorough debunking? Did he even read the NIE? There is no thorough debunking. The NIE doesn't claim the Iranians have stopped their enrichment efforts. Instead, it ignores those efforts.
Did everyone see what patteeu tried to do there?

He presents a false choice of sorts.

He asserts that there is "no thorough debunking" in the NIE. And "supports" that claim by speaking about the NIE and enrichment efforts.

As if the any debunking WRT to the NIE must involve debunking enrichment efforts.

That's completely false.

The NIE debunks the repeated assertions by the NeoCons that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program.


"Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." - Bush, Feb 2005

"There is every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do, as well." - Cheney, Dec 2005

The NIE shows our best assessment is that it stopped that persuit in 2003.

banyon
12-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Besides, there's more to this story. Iran may have never had such a program.

1)Make wild, unfounded accusation.

Check.

Time for #2:

2)Provide link to fringe website or pretend that accusation wasn't made.

Chief Henry
12-11-2007, 10:11 AM
Using force on Iraq proves nothing. Sabre rattling like RReagan had done in the past would have done the same thing without all that blood, loss of American lives and treasure spent. RR ended the Cold War without starting an aggressive war...Bush coulda have achieved the same results. The Iranians offered to put everything on the table Israel, Hezbollah and questions about it's nuke program BEFORE we went into Iraq in 2003 as per the Swiss ambassador.
This is FACT. No blood-thirsty neo-con will ever admit it though. It's human nature to justify a crime.

Besides, there's more to this story. Iran may have never had such a program.



Thats alot of faith to have in one Middle Eastern nutjob that claims the
holocaust never happened. My family deseves better protection than
your faith in a loose cannon nutjob.

Radar Chief
12-11-2007, 10:13 AM
Did everyone see what patteeu tried to do there?

He presents a false choice of sorts.

He asserts that there is "no thorough debunking" in the NIE. And "supports" that claim by speaking about the NIE and enrichment efforts.

As if the any debunking WRT to the NIE must involve debunking enrichment efforts.

That's completely false.

The NIE debunks the repeated assertions by the NeoCons that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program.


"Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." - Bush, Feb 2005

"There is every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do, as well." - Cheney, Dec 2005

The NIE shows our best assessment is that it stopped that persuit in 2003.

Had you posted some evidence of this “debunking” instead of a couple of quotes from Bush and Cheney, this post might hold some merit.

Taco John
12-11-2007, 10:25 AM
Thats alot of faith to have in one Middle Eastern nutjob that claims the
holocaust never happened. My family deseves better protection than
your faith in a loose cannon nutjob.



What does his believe of the holocaust have anything to do with the safety and security of your family? What a wierd couple of things to put together...

Taco John
12-11-2007, 10:27 AM
Whether you believe in the 16 US agencies who put together this report or not, politically this is a knockout punch to bombing Iran. If Bush takes action against them without going to congress, he'll be impeached, charged and tried. The political reality is that this report effectively takes the issue out of Bush's hands and puts it back in the hands of congress, where it belongs.

Chief Henry
12-11-2007, 11:08 AM
What does his believe of the holocaust have anything to do with the safety and security of your family? What a wierd couple of things to put together...


:stupid:

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 11:18 AM
I have one small complaint about the thread title. While the neocons are losing their grip on power (and will hopefully lose it altogether next election), they aren't losing their grip on reality. To lose their grip on reality, they first have to have had a grip on reality, which they never did.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 11:19 AM
:stupid:
That's not much of an answer to a perfectly valid question. His primary beef is with Israel. Unless your family lives in Israel, how does he threaten their security? Care to attempt an actual answer?

Chief Henry
12-11-2007, 11:57 AM
That's not much of an answer to a perfectly valid question. His primary beef is with Israel. Unless your family lives in Israel, how does he threaten their security? Care to attempt an actual answer?


I guess putting 1+1+1 is a difficult thing to comprehend for some of you.
It needs no explaining.

jAZ
12-11-2007, 11:58 AM
Had you posted some evidence of this “debunking” instead of a couple of quotes from Bush and Cheney, this post might hold some merit.
Had you bothered to follow the news about what the NIE does and does not say, I wouldn't have to provide you the cliffs notes for what the NIE says.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 12:03 PM
I guess putting 1+1+1 is a difficult thing to comprehend for some of you.
It needs no explaining.
Well, then educate us, rather than making up more and more excuses for why you won't explain it.

Radar Chief
12-11-2007, 12:10 PM
Had you bothered to follow the news about what the NIE does and does not say, I wouldn't have to provide you the cliffs notes for what the NIE says.

What does that have to do with you posting claims then adding quotes that have nothing to do with your claims?

Chief Henry
12-11-2007, 12:12 PM
Well, then educate us, rather than making up more and more excuses for why you won't explain it.

IF you need explainin, then explainin isn't going to work for you or TJ.

HolmeZz
12-11-2007, 12:18 PM
So you can't actually explain your position, you're just a warmonger.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 12:27 PM
IF you need explainin, then explainin isn't going to work for you or TJ.
Since you steadfastly refuse to explain, preferring instead to resort to childish ad hominem and argumentum ad emoticondum, then I'll accept this as your way of admitting that you don't really have a ready explanation, that you were just talking out of your ass, and were hoping nobody would challenge you on it.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:31 PM
Well, then educate us, rather than making up more and more excuses for why you won't explain it.

I find it amazing that the liberals here will post things they have found on liberal websites and consider them pure fact and when the "neocons" provide similar links they go ballistic and ask for proof that their information is correct.

I've seen very little on this board, or other similar boards, that has enough fact in it to even be believable. That's OK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just amazed at the number of liberals that feel their opinion is the only game in town.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:32 PM
Since you steadfastly refuse to explain, preferring instead to resort to childish ad hominem and argumentum ad emoticondum, then I'll accept this as your way of admitting that you don't really have a ready explanation, that you were just talking out of your ass, and were hoping nobody would challenge you on it.

I'm still waiting for you to post anything but your own version of assspeak. Your response here is nothing more than a personal attack because your original argument was weak and you are diverting.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 12:35 PM
I find it amazing that the liberals here will post things they have found on liberal websites and consider them pure fact and when the "neocons" provide similar links they go ballistic and ask for proof that their information is correct.

I've seen very little on this board, or other similar boards, that has enough fact in it to even be believable. That's OK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just amazed at the number of liberals that feel their opinion is the only game in town.
In my opinion, if one side is trying to make the case that we should do something as drastic as going to war (we all know how badly that turned out last time), based on the argument that "since he hates Israel, he's obviously going to blow up my house" (yes, that's a caracature of the argument, but it ain't far off), then side trying to make that case should at least be able to tie up the loose ends for us so that we can understand why his disdain for Israel equals an agenda to attack the US.

What comes to mind is the Lewis Black bit: Iran ... Iran ... Iran ... IRAQ!

jAZ
12-11-2007, 12:37 PM
What does that have to do with you posting claims then adding quotes that have nothing to do with your claims?
The NIE and Bush and Cheney's endorsement of it debunks their prior claims.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 12:39 PM
I'm still waiting for you to post anything but your own version of assspeak. Your response here is nothing more than a personal attack because your original argument was weak and you are diverting.
ROFL

What original argument would that be? Other than my cheeky comment about neocons early in the thread (which has nothing to do with this discussion), my first involvement in this discussion was to ask Chief Henry to provide a better response to TJ's question than just an emoticon. Everything else I've posted since has been in furtherance of that challenge. He has yet to stand up to the challenge. Since you have decided to weigh in on his side, maybe you could attempt to explain, or are you just gonna join in his battle plan to avoid explaining by hurling barbs?

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:40 PM
In my opinion, if one side is trying to make the case that we should do something as drastic as going to war (we all know how badly that turned out last time), based on the argument that "since he hates Israel, he's obviously going to blow up my house" (yes, that's a caracature of the argument, but it ain't far off), then side trying to make that case should at least be able to tie up the loose ends for us so that we can understand why his disdain for Israel equals an agenda to attack the US.

What comes to mind is the Lewis Black bit: Iran ... Iran ... Iran ... IRAQ!

My assumption here is that you haven't heard his sabre rattling about the U.S. Even if you have it is apparent that you don't feel his animosity towards the U.S. is something that you would worry about.

What would the impact be if Iran nuked Israel? Would it have an impact on 'your house'? If you feel the answer is no then there is no reason to continue the discussion. An attack on Israel would surely be responded to in like manner. Once the bubble goes up there is no way of knowing who would be tossing up the next round. Restraint is not something I would count on in a case like that.

The nutjob in Iraq is not threatening the safety of the U.S. directly, he is threateninig world stability. His action would cause a chain reaction that could have a direct impact here as well as other places.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:41 PM
What original argument would that be? Other than my cheeky comment about neocons early in the thread (which has nothing to do with this discussion), my first involvement in this discussion was to ask Chief Henry to provide a better response to TJ's question than just an emoticon. Everything else I've posted since has been in furtherance of that challenge. He has yet to stand up to the challenge. Since you have decided to weigh in on his side, maybe you could attempt to explain, or are you just gonna join in his battle plan to avoid explaining by hurling barbs?

Your laughing just goes to prove that you can't see that some posts just are not worth the effort to reply to. If you live and die by the emoticon I'd say that you need to get a life, just like your sister Taco John.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 12:44 PM
My assumption here is that you haven't heard his sabre rattling about the U.S. Even if you have it is apparent that you don't feel his animosity towards the U.S. is something that you would worry about.

What would the impact be if Iran nuked Israel? Would it have an impact on 'your house'? If you feel the answer is no then there is no reason to continue the discussion. An attack on Israel would surely be responded to in like manner. Once the bubble goes up there is no way of knowing who would be tossing up the next round. Restraint is not something I would count on in a case like that.

The nutjob in Iraq is not threatening the safety of the U.S. directly, he is threateninig world stability. His action would cause a chain reaction that could have a direct impact here as well as other places.Well, thank you, finally somebody balls up enough to provide at least some semblance of an explanation. I'll agree that it would impact world stability. But there have been people and nations throughout history that have been in a position to possibly threaten world stability. We haven't waged war on all of them, and until Iraq came along, we hadn't pre-emptively attacked any them "just in case." And some of those people have been a lot nuttier than Ahmadinejad. And yet, the world is still here.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 12:48 PM
Your laughing just goes to prove that you can't see that some posts just are not worth the effort to reply to. If you live and die by the emoticon I'd say that you need to get a life, just like your sister Taco John.I didn't use the emoticon, Chief Henry did. Perhaps you should explain your philosophy on living and dying by the emoticon to him. I only rarely use them, and almost never use them without adjunct text. And the question asked by TJ was a very good question. As you showed, there is an answer for it, and it opens up a whole new realm for discussion. Therefore, when challenged to support the position that Iran's disdain for Israel is tantamount to a security threat for the US, to take the "dur, you're just stupid if you need me to explain my side" approach is just a coward's way out.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:52 PM
Well, thank you, finally somebody balls up enough to provide at least some semblance of an explanation. I'll agree that it would impact world stability. But there have been people and nations throughout history that have been in a position to possibly threaten world stability. We haven't waged war on all of them, and until Iraq came along, we hadn't pre-emptively attacked any them "just in case." And yet, the world is still here.

Other nations have not been involved with the war in Iraq like Iran has been. It has been proven that a great number of the insurgents and the explosives the insurgents are using has come from Iran.

We have been at a defacto war with them anyway. Why not just wax their ass and get it over with?

I don't want an all out war, I have kids that are the age of serving if drafted. But if there is going to be some activity I would just as well wish for it to be somewhere else rather than here.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:53 PM
I didn't use the emoticon, Chief Henry did. Perhaps you should explain your philosophy on living and dying by the emoticon to him. I only rarely use them, and almost never use them without adjunct text. And the question asked by TJ was a very good question. As you showed, there is an answer for it, and it opens up a whole new realm for discussion. Therefore, when challenged to support the position that Iran's disdain for Israel is tantamount to a security threat for the US, to take the "dur, you're just stupid if you need me to explain my side" approach is just a coward's way out.

As I said, there are times when it's not practical to attempt to answer questions that obviously have no answer that will suffice.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 01:04 PM
Other nations have not been involved with the war in Iraq like Iran has been. It has been proven that a great number of the insurgents and the explosives the insurgents are using has come from Iran.True, but the same can be said for a half dozen other nations. Is there reliable evidence that the aid that has come from Iran has been the product of any official action on the part of their government or military? Or is it mostly individuals acting of their own accord, smuggling weapons and supplies under the radar? We have been at a defacto war with them anyway. Why not just wax their ass and get it over with?At this point, that would be kind of dumb. For one thing, our troops, supplies and equipment are spread very thin. Iran has a fresh and very strong standing army. They would be nowhere near the push-over that Saddam's army was, and I'll wager they'd deal a helluva more damage to our forces than the insurgents in Iraq have done. With world sentiment as aligned against us as it is these days, there are probably a number of governments that would just love for us to be thinned and weakened to the point of vulnerability. I don't want an all out war, I have kids that are the age of serving if drafted. But if there is going to be some activity I would just as well wish for it to be somewhere else rather than here.I don't think there's going to be much in the way of activity. Ahmadinejad may be nutty, but he isn't stupid. He's very shrewd and calculating, with a very pronounced sense of national pride. To us, that makes him evil, but it is also likely to prevent him from trying to go nuclear against Israel, or to provoke them into doing it. He's not going to risk the complete destruction of his country. Right now, he's sabre-rattling, just mouthing off, but there isn't much more to it than that. He hasn't actually threatened Israel (the myth that he called for their destruction isn't accurate; he actually just predicted that they wouldn't last, that they would fall apart) directly. If he were to go to war with Israel, in all likelihood, he would stick to conventional machinery. And if we stick with our policy of protecting Israel at all costs, then Israel would probably kick his ass, and he'd go back to sucking his thumb.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 01:09 PM
As I said, there are times when it's not practical to attempt to answer questions that obviously have no answer that will suffice.
This one obviously had an answer that would suffice. After all, I bought your explanation, even if I don't agree with the direness of the assessment. I don't know if TJ bought it, you'll have to ask him. Always better to at least try to explain your position, rather than just defaulting to the "you're stupid if you have to ask" approach. That one never convinces the other person that you have an answer, let alone an answer that they would accept if it were given. It only convinces the other person that you (in this case, Chief Henry) have no explanation to offer. So if you have one to offer, offer it, because you may be surprised, we just might buy it.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 01:14 PM
True, but the same can be said for a half dozen other nations. Is there reliable evidence that the aid that has come from Iran has been the product of any official action on the part of their government or military?

Or is it mostly individuals acting of their own accord, smuggling weapons and supplies under the radar? At this point, that would be kind of dumb. For one thing, our troops, supplies and equipment are spread very thin. Iran has a fresh and very strong standing army. They would be nowhere near the push-over that Saddam's army was, and I'll wager they'd deal a helluva more damage to our forces than the insurgents in Iraq have done. With world sentiment as aligned against us as it is these days, there are probably a number of governments that would just love for us to be thinned and weakened to the point of vulnerability. I don't think there's going to be much in the way of activity.

Ahmadinejad may be nutty, but he isn't stupid. He's very shrewd and calculating, with a very pronounced sense of national pride. To us, that makes him evil, but it is also likely to prevent him from trying to go nuclear against Israel, or to provoke them into doing it. He's not going to risk the complete destruction of his country. Right now, he's sabre-rattling, just mouthing off, but there isn't much more to it than that. He hasn't actually threatened Israel (the myth that he called for their destruction isn't accurate; he actually just predicted that they wouldn't last, that they would fall apart) directly. If he were to go to war with Israel, in all likelihood, he would stick to conventional machinery.

There have been stories about Iranians participating on CNN, they stop short of saying they are state sponsored. To assume that they are not sponsored is being a little naive IMO.

A war in Iran would be quite different that the war in Iraq. I think it may be more along the lines of what happened in 1991. Little hardware in the way of tanks and ground forces and more about precision bombing.

Ahmadinejad is stupid, calculating and driven by hatred. IMO.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 01:16 PM
This one obviously had an answer that would suffice. After all, I bought your explanation, even if I don't agree with the direness of the assessment. I don't know if TJ bought it, you'll have to ask him. Always better to at least try to explain your position, rather than just defaulting to the "you're stupid if you have to ask" approach. That one never convinces the other person that you have an answer, let alone an answer that they would accept if it were given. It only convinces the other person that you (in this case, Chief Henry) have no explanation to offer. So if you have one to offer, offer it, because you may be surprised, we just might buy it.

I don't converse with TJ, I think he is a total asshole and not worth my time.

Radar Chief
12-11-2007, 01:40 PM
The NIE and Bush and Cheney's endorsement of it debunks their prior claims.

Then why did you post this instead of their endorsements?

The NIE debunks the repeated assertions by the NeoCons that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program.


"Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." - Bush, Feb 2005

"There is every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do, as well." - Cheney, Dec 2005

The NIE shows our best assessment is that it stopped that persuit in 2003.

go bowe
12-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Whether you believe in the 16 US agencies who put together this report or not, politically this is a knockout punch to bombing Iran. If Bush takes action against them without going to congress, he'll be impeached, charged and tried. The political reality is that this report effectively takes the issue out of Bush's hands and puts it back in the hands of congress, where it belongs.impeached?

you should live so long...

knock out punch?

i don't think the present administration gives a shit as to what political reality may or may not exist...

and i don't think the present administration has any intention of letting this issue be taken out of their hands...

much ado, but nothing "actionable"...

Taco John
12-11-2007, 02:42 PM
I don't believe congress would stand by and let Bush militarily strike Iran at this point. I do believe that any saber rattling on this issue is merely that and nothing more. This report is put together by 16 different US agencies. If Bush ignores their conclusions unilaterally, he will have committed a crime that I believe Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) would overwhelmingly move to hold him accountable for... This, of course, is absent an "event" that they can pin Iran on. That's not out of the realm of possibility.

But for all practical purposes, this report ties Bush's hands.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 02:46 PM
impeached?

you should live so long...

knock out punch?

i don't think the present administration gives a shit as to what political reality may or may not exist...

and i don't think the present administration has any intention of letting this issue be taken out of their hands...

much ado, but nothing "actionable"...
Personally, I think this is all a moot point. Bush isn't about to do anything to aggress against Iran. I don't think he ever intended to.

patteeu
12-11-2007, 03:36 PM
Did everyone see what patteeu tried to do there?

He presents a false choice of sorts.

He asserts that there is "no thorough debunking" in the NIE. And "supports" that claim by speaking about the NIE and enrichment efforts.

As if the any debunking WRT to the NIE must involve debunking enrichment efforts.

That's completely false.

The NIE debunks the repeated assertions by the NeoCons that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program.


"Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." - Bush, Feb 2005

"There is every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do, as well." - Cheney, Dec 2005

The NIE shows our best assessment is that it stopped that persuit in 2003.

A "thorough" debunking would debunk the broad claim that Iran is a nuclear threat would it not? Even if you consider the NIE a debunking of that which it addresses, how can it be a thorough debunking if it doesn't address the entire broad claim?

Beyond that, how can you claim it debunks anything at all without knowing what the basis for the top level assessments are? It's not like the CIA has a good track record of accuracy with these things. In fact it's record has been pretty dismal over the past couple of decades. Even more obvious is the fact that the 2007 NIE contradicts the "high confidence" finding of the 2005 NIE that Iran's nuclear weapons program was still active at that time.

patteeu
12-11-2007, 03:42 PM
The NIE and Bush and Cheney's endorsement of it debunks their prior claims.

Interestingly, Bush and Cheney don't see it that way.

BucEyedPea
12-11-2007, 04:27 PM
Thats alot of faith to have in one Middle Eastern nutjob that claims the holocaust never happened. My family deseves better protection than your faith in a loose cannon nutjob.
Oh stop! I told you before this man has no power to push any nuke button in Iran.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-11-2007, 04:49 PM
All i see is the Neocons need more blood to survive so the real question is...are they vampires? ;)

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 11:40 AM
Now that my juice is back on (at the office anyway)I can respond again to some of the (no thought) posters. It seems some people need pictures drawn for them.

Dispite all the proof in the world that the Holocaust
did happen and JEWS were slaughtered and PROFILED. AK-MOOD-I-NEED-CLUE the president of Iran does not beleave the Holocaust ever took place. That alone should tell you how unstable
he is as a WACKO NUTJOB . PLUS the fact that he's stated he wants to eleminate Israel and PLUS the fact that IRAN is sending terrorist into IRAQ to try to kill our soldiers PLUS the fact that IRAN is
sending IED's and bombs into IRAQ. We don't
know for sure what he's been doing with the underground nuclear labs that they've been building.


Is it hard to beleave that this NUTJOB would love to blow up more USA military bases anywhere in
the world should he get that capability ?

Putting trust in that man is not the wisest thing to do imo. I would hate to see what happens in this world should he send a NUKE towards Israel !!!

Lets hope ISRAEL doesn't put there head in the sand. I doubt if they will. it would be great if Israel would take of that POS so we don't have to.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 11:43 AM
All i see is the Neocons need more blood to survive so the real question is...are they vampires? ;)

How would you describe Ak-Mood-I -NEED - A CLUE ?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 01:00 PM
How would you describe Ak-Mood-I -NEED - A CLUE ?


Powerless, unpopular shill.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 02:04 PM
Powerless, unpopular shill.


Unpopular, yes.

Powerless, hardly.

Calcountry
12-12-2007, 02:10 PM
Thats alot of faith to have in one Middle Eastern nutjob that claims the
holocaust never happened. My family deseves better protection than
your faith in a loose cannon nutjob.You better shut up or I will make a nasty neo-fascist sounding name to tag on you.

memyselfI
12-12-2007, 02:12 PM
The Neocons went off the deep end when they signed onto PNAC. Everything from then on has been their trying to convince us that their insanity is actually sane.

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 03:07 PM
I would hate to see what happens in this world should he send a NUKE towards Israel !!!


Actually, I suspect you would like the result, as it would involve Tehran and a number of other Iranian cities being replaced by mushroom clouds, courtesy of the Dimona complex.

Then again, you'd probably be kvetching that it wasn't the US that got to do it.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 03:17 PM
Actually, I suspect you would like the result, as it would involve Tehran and a number of other Iranian cities being replaced by mushroom clouds, courtesy of the Dimona complex.

Then again, you'd probably be kvetching that it wasn't the US that got to do it.


Wrong again !

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 03:21 PM
Powerless, hardly.
If you did your research you'd know he has no real power in Iran.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-12-2007, 03:23 PM
If you did your research you'd know he has no real power in Iran.

He doesn't need he research, he craves blood before returning to his coffin.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 03:33 PM
Unpopular, yes.

Powerless, hardly.



That pretty much tells me all that I need to know about your understanding of even the basics of Iranian politics. You're laughably misinformed. It explains why you're so paranoid. You think this guy actually is meaningful. He's not. His only tool is the television camera.

The guy has as much power in his country as Prince Charles has in his. He's nothing more than a talking head. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the one with the power.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 03:48 PM
That pretty much tells me all that I need to know about your understanding of even the basics of Iranian politics. You're laughably misinformed. It explains why you're so paranoid. You think this guy actually is meaningful. He's not. His only tool is the television camera.

The guy has as much power in his country as Prince Charles has in his. He's nothing more than a talking head. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the one with the power.


If its as simple as you say, what prevents Ali Khamenei from
having a sit down chat with INEEDACLUE and telling him to STFD and STFU?

So Iran radicals are not wanting to blow up Israel and they want to stop sending IED's into IRaq?

I'm hardly doubting you know much more about the situation in Iran than the rest of us. Unless of course your related to mesfistmeinazz.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 03:49 PM
He doesn't need he research, he craves blood before returning to his coffin.

Just eat plenty of garlic bread before posting on this thread ;)

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:25 PM
If its as simple as you say, what prevents Ali Khamenei from
having a sit down chat with INEEDACLUE and telling him to STFD and STFU?

I didn't say there weren't politics involved. But what I said was true: his power comes primarily from television cameras, not from any actual decision-making power. Look it up...



So Iran radicals are not wanting to blow up Israel and they want to stop sending IED's into IRaq?

To my knowledge, there's been no proof that Iran is sending IEDs into Iraq. Just some talk that it's a possibility. Not that they wouldn't have reason to cause chaos there, considering there is a large faction in Iraq who would like to align themselves with Iran. I suspect that Iran sees that it is to their benefit that these people gain the most amount of power. But then, I'm honestly unconcerned about this issue. We should get our troops out of there and let the people who live there figure this out on their own. If enough people want to make a government there work, then they'll pull together to make it happen. If not, then they'll seperate and war with eachother. We've got bigger fish to fry at home than to micro-manage muslim culture.




I'm hardly doubting you know much more about the situation in Iran than the rest of us. Unless of course your related to mesfistmeinazz.

A lot of people here understand that Ahmadenijahd doesn't have any real power. It's not like I'm dropping a revelation bomb here.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 04:35 PM
[QUOTE=Taco John] To my knowledge, there's been no proof that Iran is sending IEDs into Iraq. [QUOTE]

:bong:

banyon
12-12-2007, 04:38 PM
If you did your research you'd know he has no real power in Iran.

Steps 3 and 4, check.

3)Someone else challenges accusation with reasonable points or facts.

4)Go back to step 2, or call them "NeoCons" or "Socialists" depending on their political leanings. Tell them they can't understand because they haven't spent all the years training at the Austrian School of exclusion.*(amended: or tell them to "do their research" in substitute for meaningful facts)*.