PDA

View Full Version : 'Iran tested new missile during summit'


Donger
12-12-2007, 02:45 PM
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847322495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iran tested a newly developed ballistic missile on the day of Annapolis conference, Channel 10 News reported Wednesday.

The missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow.

According to the Channel 10 report, the new missile is an improvement on the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel. This provides for a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar had announced the development of the new missile on the day of the summit, but had not said that it had actually been tested.

According to the country's IRNA news agency, Najjar said the missile was named the "Ashoura," meaning "the tenth day" in Farsi - a sacred reference among Shi'ite Muslims to the martyrdom of the third imam.

The Iranian defense minister said that "the production of the new missile was one of the Defense Ministry's greatest achievements."

Analysts believe much of Iran's military production has benefited from assistance from Russia, China and other countries, but many of their weapons development claims have not been independently verified.

Recent weapons development has been motivated by Iran's standoff with the US over its controversial nuclear program.
The Shihab-3, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, has a range of at least 1,300 kilometers. In 2005, Iranian officials said they had improved the range of the Shihab-3 to 2,000 kilometers, equal to the new missile announced Tuesday.

Experts also believe Iran is developing the Shihab-4 missile, thought to have a range between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometers that would enable it to hit much of Europe.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 02:55 PM
Sounds like something people in Europe and Moscow should be concerned about.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 02:55 PM
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847322495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iran tested a newly developed ballistic missile on the day of Annapolis conference, Channel 10 News reported Wednesday.

The missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow.

According to the Channel 10 report, the new missile is an improvement on the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel. This provides for a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar had announced the development of the new missile on the day of the summit, but had not said that it had actually been tested.

According to the country's IRNA news agency, Najjar said the missile was named the "Ashoura," meaning "the tenth day" in Farsi - a sacred reference among Shi'ite Muslims to the martyrdom of the third imam.

The Iranian defense minister said that "the production of the new missile was one of the Defense Ministry's greatest achievements."

Analysts believe much of Iran's military production has benefited from assistance from Russia, China and other countries, but many of their weapons development claims have not been independently verified.

Recent weapons development has been motivated by Iran's standoff with the US over its controversial nuclear program.
The Shihab-3, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, has a range of at least 1,300 kilometers. In 2005, Iranian officials said they had improved the range of the Shihab-3 to 2,000 kilometers, equal to the new missile announced Tuesday.

Experts also believe Iran is developing the Shihab-4 missile, thought to have a range between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometers that would enable it to hit much of Europe.


I think one BIG GROUP HUG togeather should keep our soldiers and ISRAEL safe and sound

Cochise
12-12-2007, 02:57 PM
I think one BIG GROUP HUG togeather should keep our soldiers and ISRAEL safe and sound

Don't worry, Barak Obama said he was going to talk to Iran and "make sure they understand their responsibilities in the region"

Donger
12-12-2007, 02:58 PM
Sounds like something people in Europe and Moscow should be concerned about.

And, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, too?

Donger
12-12-2007, 02:59 PM
It's interesting that this new bird is solid-fueled, too.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 03:27 PM
And, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, too?


Not if the right guy gets elected.

Donger
12-12-2007, 03:33 PM
Not if the right guy gets elected.

Interesting. Which candidate has proposed pulling our troops out of Afghanistan?

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 03:40 PM
I think one BIG GROUP HUG togeather should keep our soldiers and ISRAEL safe and sound
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."


God is watching you...from a distance. :)

talastan
12-12-2007, 03:52 PM
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."


God is watching you...from a distance. :)

So is Allah, and according to the head guy in Iran, he wants us dead!

Iowanian
12-12-2007, 03:52 PM
Maybe Israel should pop off a couple of new MOABS their friends in the US provided.

Maybe drop it into a paper machette Mohammed's arse.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-12-2007, 03:53 PM
Interesting. Which candidate has proposed pulling our troops out of Afghanistan?

Well Ron Paul would obviously, since he said all of our soldiers would be coming home from over a hundred countries around the world.

talastan
12-12-2007, 03:54 PM
It's interesting that this new bird is solid-fueled, too.
I agree Donger, It is defintely showing that Iran is really working toward ICBM capability IMO. Wasn't there a report that said they increased their space program budget significantly?

Donger
12-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Well Ron Paul would obviously, since he said all of our soldiers would be coming home from over a hundred countries around the world.

Okay, I haven't been paying much attention. Thanks.

That doesn't sound very wise to me.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-12-2007, 03:54 PM
So is Allah, and according to the head guy in Iran, he wants us dead!

so you've been told eh? and what revelation was that? or is it media hype?

talastan
12-12-2007, 03:56 PM
This is according to media, Iranian dissidents, Human rights activists working in Iran, etc. I'm not saying that's what the Koran says, but someone is interepting (sp?) it differently. Just look at the anti-Isreal retortric.....

KILLER_CLOWN
12-12-2007, 03:57 PM
Okay, I haven't been paying much attention. Thanks.

That doesn't sound very wise to me.

Of course it doesn't, the best way to make friends all around the globe is the "gun to the head" theory eh? i got it, i'll try that on the next person i befriend. Hey buddy do you like me AND MY 45? i thought so...

Iowanian
12-12-2007, 04:04 PM
Hannibal Lector would eat your liver, even if you bring a lovely card.

I don't see the US holding a gun to any Friends.

I see some assholes and bullies reminded that we've got a big stick on occasion.

Chief Henry
12-12-2007, 04:06 PM
So is Allah, and according to the head guy in Iran, he wants us dead!


Which head guy in Iran?

It appears there's more than one, according to thoooooooooose that really know !!! I mean, if we knew who actually was in charge, we could better prepare. But since we don't know who's in charge for sure, we should just sit around and smoke a peace pipe and wait for
a profit to appear from that peace loving islamic muslim nation that keeps sending IED's into IRAQ.

Kumbayah everyone.

Happy Hanuka Iran :harumph:

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:15 PM
Of course it doesn't, the best way to make friends all around the globe is the "gun to the head" theory eh? i got it, i'll try that on the next person i befriend. Hey buddy do you like me AND MY 45? i thought so...

Last I checked, many of our overseas troops are welcomed by the host country.

Am I wrong?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:15 PM
Interesting. Which candidate has proposed pulling our troops out of Afghanistan?



Ron Paul.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:18 PM
Last I checked, many of our overseas troops are welcomed by the host country.

Am I wrong?



Yeah, we prop up their socialist economies by providing them protection at the cost of American taxpayers. Of course they welcome our troops. They wouldn't likely be so welcoming if they had to foot the bill though.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:20 PM
Yeah, we prop up their socialist economies by providing them protection at the cost of American taxpayers. Of course they welcome our troops. They wouldn't likely be so welcoming if they had to foot the bill though.

So Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist?

Radar Chief
12-12-2007, 04:22 PM
Last I checked, many of our overseas troops are welcomed by the host country.

Am I wrong?

It’s really kind of a love/hate thing. Love our money but not the problems American soldiers bring with them.
Germany, Italy, Greece, most of the places I visited, were like that. Contrast that with Okinawa, they’ve been trying to get rid of our Naval base there for several years now. They just want us gone.

dirk digler
12-12-2007, 04:23 PM
I don't know much about missles and how they are built but couldn't they just put a nuke warhead on top of this new missle?

Radar Chief
12-12-2007, 04:24 PM
Yeah, we prop up their socialist economies by providing them protection at the cost of American taxpayers. Of course they welcome our troops. They wouldn't likely be so welcoming if they had to foot the bill though.

Its not just that. American soldiers/sailors are out in their economy spending their paychecks. That’s a big part of the income to merchants around bases.

Radar Chief
12-12-2007, 04:25 PM
So Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist?

:LOL: Oh no you di-unt! ROFL

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:26 PM
I don't know much about missles and how they are built but couldn't they just put a nuke warhead on top of this new missle?

Yes, it is designed to carry a warhead of ~1,000 kg. Whether it is a physics package or HE isn't the issue. It's just weight and volume.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:26 PM
It’s really kind of a love/hate thing. Love our money but not the problems American soldiers bring with them.
Germany, Italy, Greece, most of the places I visited, were like that. Contrast that with Okinawa, they’ve been trying to get rid of our Naval base there for several years now. They just want us gone.

That makes sense, I guess.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 04:28 PM
So Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist?
No he's a neo-non-interventionist regarding the use of our military and foreign aid. He's not against trade, communication and cultural exchanges with other nations. I see you left the British Empire but it didn't leave you.

BTW the people of Okinawa do not like our troops there. They only put up with it because they are dependent on us economically. But they'd be pleased if we left.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:29 PM
So Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist?


Whatever label you want to apply, I couldn't care less. The "ah, I gotcha, I get to call your guy a name that sounds out-there" tap dance is fun... I'm just not in the mood to play along today.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:30 PM
No he's a neo-non-interventionist regarding the use of our military and foreign aid. He's not against trade, communication and cultural exchanges with other nations.

Jeez. A "neo-non-interventionist"? Does that mean that he opposes preemptive military force?

I see you left the British Empire but it didn't leave you.

What?

BTW the people of Okinawa do not like our troops there. They only put up with it because they are dependent on us economically. But they'd be pleased if we left.

Fair enough.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:33 PM
Whatever label you want to apply, I couldn't care less. The "ah, I gotcha, I get to call your guy a name that sounds out-there" tap dance is fun... I'm just not in the mood to play along today.

Sorry, but that's what he sounds like. BEP just provided perhaps a better one: "Neo-non-interventionist." Maybe we could shorten that to an acronym? A "NiNi"?

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 04:33 PM
Jeez. A "neo-non-interventionist"? Does that mean that he opposes preemptive military force?
Absolutely...unless there's an imminent danger.
Don't forget pre-emptive war was invented by Hitler. Ike, one of our former presidents has a quote saying this. You should heed it.

What?

:p

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:38 PM
Absolutely...unless there's an imminent danger.
Don't forget pre-emptive war was invented by Hitler. Ike, one of our former presidents has a quote saying this. You should heed it.



:p

I think you're getting your terms mixed up. Eisenhower opposed 'preventive' war, not 'preemptive.'

dirk digler
12-12-2007, 04:40 PM
Yes, it is designed to carry a warhead of ~1,000 kg. Whether it is a physics package or HE isn't the issue. It's just weight and volume.

Thanks. So they have the delivery package they just need the nuke to stick on top.

talastan
12-12-2007, 04:43 PM
Thanks. So they have the delivery package they just need the nuke to stick on top.

Yep, with the development of solid booster fuel they also can begin even farther range missle tests.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:44 PM
Thanks. So they have the delivery package they just need the nuke to stick on top.

A nuclear weapon can be 'delivered' by many means. But, yes, if the Iranians can make a physics package less than ~1,000 kg, they could deliver it within the range of this MRBM. And, that is a very heavy warhead. Ours are well less than 1,000 lbs.

talastan
12-12-2007, 04:44 PM
Absolutely...unless there's an imminent danger?
Don't forget pre-emptive war was invented by Hitler. Ike, one of our former presidents has a quote saying this. You should heed it.



:p

So what do you, or Ron Paul define as "imminent danger". A missle heading our way? A terrorist bomb going off in the populated downtown area of a city? Just curious.....

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:45 PM
Sorry, but that's what he sounds like.


What is a neo-isolationist and how do they differ from your run of the mill isolationist?

Does George Washington qualify as a neo-isolationist? Not that a Brit would have any sense of pride in the traditions of George Washington. But his farewell speech is a place where Paul takes a lot of his inspiration where foriegn policy is concerned. They are wise words.


It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html)


You say "neo-isolationist." I say "Washingtonian."

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:46 PM
A nuclear weapon can be 'delivered' by many means. But, yes, if the Iranians can make a physics package less than ~1,000 kg, they could deliver it within the range of this MRBM. And, that is a very heavy warhead. Ours are well less than 1,000 lbs.

Not in the first generation they weren't. Not even close.

Iowanian
12-12-2007, 04:47 PM
So Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist?

I think what you meant was.....

"SOOOOOOOO, RonPaul IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs a neo-isolationist"


Taco will await the talking points bulletin from RuPaultardsdotcom before answering.



*this message was brought to you by SANITY, reminding you that all 9-11 truethers are dumbasses.

yeah....abandoning our long term and legitimate Allies is going to REALLY improve our position and reputation with them and any potential future pals.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:49 PM
What is a neo-isolationist and how do they differ from your run of the mill isolationist?

Does George Washington qualify as a neo-isolationist? Not that a Brit would have any sense of pride in the traditions of George Washington. But his farewell speech is a place where Paul takes a lot of his inspiration where foriegn policy is concerned. They are wise words.


It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html)


You say "neo-isolationist." I say "Washingtonian."

Well, BEP has already educated me. He's a "neo-non-interventionist" or a "NiNi." That's good. I like that he's not a true isolationist.

And, I'm not a Brit. I'm a U.S. citizen. I have a tremendous sense of pride in the Founding Fathers. I'm glad that you share it, honestly. George Washington was one of the greatest Americans to ever live, IMO.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:52 PM
Not in the first generation they weren't. Not even close.

Are you talking about Trinity, Little Boy and Fat Man again?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 04:54 PM
And, I'm not a Brit. I'm a U.S. citizen. I have a tremendous sense of pride in the Founding Fathers. I'm glad that you share it, honestly. George Washington was one of the greatest Americans to ever live, IMO.



My apologies for misunderstaning your past. Nevertheless, I don't apologize for Ron Paul's wisely-guided foriegn policy stance, even in a nuclear age. I believe Washington had it right, and that we have no business providing security to the rest of the world at the expense of the American taxpayer/economy.

Donger
12-12-2007, 04:59 PM
My apologies for misunderstaning your past. Nevertheless, I don't apologize for Ron Paul's wisely-guided foriegn policy stance, even in a nuclear age. I believe Washington had it right, and that we have no business providing security to the rest of the world at the expense of the American taxpayer/economy.

Well, to be blunt, I think that it's an exceedingly simplistic comparison. Washington just finished removing a foreign power from control of our new country, and didn't have the forces (or power) required to project any power.

The simple fact seems to be that we have allies around the world, some of which we are treaty-bound to assist defend. Does Ron Paul propose tearing up all those treaties, too?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:07 PM
The simple fact seems to be that we have allies around the world, some of which we are treaty-bound to assist defend. Does Ron Paul propose tearing up all those treaties, too?

Just the illegal ones that aren't constitutionally authorized.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:09 PM
Also, I wanted to note that it's not a comparison I'm making. It's a judgement on what I see as a superior course that is the most beneficial to our nation, vs. an inferior one that puts us in the cross hairs of the world.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:10 PM
Just the illegal ones that aren't constitutionally authorized.

Could you list the illegal ones, please?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:16 PM
I'll leave that to Paul's judgement. Wherever he thinks it's in our national defense interest to leave troops, I'll trust his judgement. But from what I can discern, there aren't so many places like that. We're still pretty well insulated from foriegn threats despite the profound failure of our government on 9/11.

Brock
12-12-2007, 05:19 PM
We're still pretty well insulated from foriegn threats despite the profound failure of our government on 9/11.

Interesting conclusion.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 05:20 PM
The simple fact seems to be that we have allies around the world, some of which we are treaty-bound to assist defend. Does Ron Paul propose tearing up all those treaties, too?

Like who?
I don't think that applies to Israel even per the treaty part. We supply money and weapons but our military does not fight for them. Who else is there?

Taco's right, we are in an extremely advantageous geographical situation with two friendly neighbors and two large oceans.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:20 PM
I'll leave that to Paul's judgement. Wherever he thinks it's in our national defense interest to leave troops, I'll trust his judgement. But from what I can discern, there aren't so many places like that. We're still pretty well insulated from foriegn threats despite the profound failure of our government on 9/11.

Really? You don't seem the type to give any politician carte blanche.

Well for those of us who don't just give him carte blanche, I would hope that he would have some idea of which treaties he was going to tear up. That would be a prerequisite for my vote.

How does he feel about CIA? Does he support their foreign activities?

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 05:23 PM
Paul will disband the CIA. He feels intel is the army's job. I believe most of it is done by them nowadays anyways.

I want to know what treaties we have that require us to defend other nations?

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:25 PM
Like who?
I don't think that applies to Israel even per the treaty part. We supply money and weapons but our military does not fight for them. Who else is there?

Taco's right, we are in an extremely advantageous geographical situation with two friendly neighbors and two large oceans.

I think that we have a treaty obligation with South Korea. I believe that we have no legal obligation to defend Taiwan, but we would if they were attacked, IMO.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:26 PM
Paul will disband the CIA.

That's just, plain stupid.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 05:27 PM
And, I'm not a Brit. I'm a U.S. citizen.

Umm....well just in case you think I was saying otherwise...I was simply referring how you came from a country that was an empire to one not based on empire but has become one which you seem to defend. Therefore you may have left the British Empire ( Commonwealth) but the "Empire" (spirit that is) hasn't left you.

Brock
12-12-2007, 05:27 PM
Japan and the Phillipines are a couple more.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 05:29 PM
That's just, plain stupid.
He doesn't feel they interpret correctly and that's what's really needed.
It's not like he doesn't believe in the need for intel. It can be done by the military.

Brock
12-12-2007, 05:30 PM
It's incredible just how dumb some of you people are with regard to presidential powers. "He's going to disband the CIA", LOL, yeah right.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Umm....well just in case you think I was saying otherwise...I was simply referring how you came from a country that was an empire to one not based on empire but has become one which you seem to defend. Therefore you may have left the British Empire ( Commonwealth) but the "Empire" (spirit that is) hasn't left you.

You are equating us having troops in other countries (voluntarily) to an empire?

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:31 PM
He doesn't feel they interpret correctly and that's what's really needed.
It's not like he doesn't believe in the need for intel. It can be done by the military.

Then he's an idiot.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:44 PM
Really? You don't seem the type to give any politician carte blanche.

I would only say carte blanche in terms of his role as the CIC of the military. The president has a lot of authority in terms of troop deployment.


Well for those of us who don't just give him carte blanche

Let me interrupt to incredulously snicker at this sudden reigning in of the president... *heartly chuckle* (moving onward)


I would hope that he would have some idea of which treaties he was going to tear up. That would be a prerequisite for my vote.

What treaties are you particularly concerned with? I'd be happy to do some research. Not that I believe you're giving Paul any serious consideration, but for the academic merit of it...



How does he feel about CIA? Does he support their foreign activities?

He doesn't support their foreign or their domestic activities really. He sees them as an arm of government that has spun out of control of the constitutionally ordained branches of government, and lack the checks and balances of our Constitutional government. That's not to say that Ron Paul doesn't believe in foreign intelligence. He very much does. He just doesn't believe that the CIA has been held accountable for the many **** ups that they've headed which put Americans in peril, including empowering Bin Ladin, Hussein, and others.

What do you have against holding the CIA accountable for their failures, or even folding the duty of intelligence gathering into the Army? Why is this such an unworkable idea?

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 05:47 PM
You are equating us having troops in other countries (voluntarily) to an empire?
Yup! Instead of colonies, it's done as an empire of bases...over 700 of them ww and being in over a 130 countries. That and control via foreign aid aka bribes.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:48 PM
You are equating us having troops in other countries (voluntarily) to an empire?


Yes. More or less. We have militaristic imperial dominion over much of the globe. It's a big part of why "they" hate us. An obvious one at that.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 05:49 PM
Then he's an idiot.
Well, if you think that then by extension you think that about our govt and as more and more of it has been put under the military anyway.

It's become more of a Praetorian Guard these days, not a group that provides objective information about security threats.

Cochise
12-12-2007, 05:50 PM
It's incredible just how dumb some of you people are with regard to presidential powers. "He's going to disband the CIA", LOL, yeah right.

What kind of insanity is proposing that we dismantle our intelligence structure?

Why not disband the military too? If we don't need intelligence we must not need them either.

Brock
12-12-2007, 05:51 PM
What kind of insanity is proposing that we dismantle our intelligence structure?

Why not disband the military too? If we don't need intelligence we must not need them either.


I'm all for disbanding the IRS, however. ROFL

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:51 PM
I would only say carte blanche in terms of his role as the CIC of the military. The president has a lot of authority in terms of troop deployment.

It sounds like you're giving him carte blanche with regards to international diplomacy, too?

What treaties are you particularly concerned with? I'd be happy to do some research. Not that I believe you're giving Paul any serious consideration, but for the academic merit of it...

See above.

He doesn't support their foreign or their domestic activities really. He sees them as an arm of government that has spun out of control of the constitutionally ordained branches of government, and lack the checks and balances of our Constitutional government. That's not to say that Ron Paul doesn't believe in foreign intelligence. He very much does. He just doesn't believe that the CIA has been held accountable for the many **** ups that they've headed which put Americans in peril, including empowering Bin Ladin, Hussein, and others.

What do you have against holding the CIA accountable for their failures, or even folding the duty of intelligence gathering into the Army? Why is this such an unworkable idea?

One of the reasons why Truman wanted a separate, civilian intelligence agency was to prevent the military from getting, well, over zealous. I would argue that this is true today, as well. CIA is almost always held accountable for their failures, but almost never given credit for their successes, for good reason.

It's a bad idea.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:53 PM
Yup! Instead of colonies, it's done as an empire of bases...over 700 of them ww and being in over a 130 countries. That and control via foreign aid aka bribes.

Wow. Do you know what 'empire' means?

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:54 PM
Yes. More or less. We have militaristic imperial dominion over much of the globe. It's a big part of why "they" hate us. An obvious one at that.

No, we really don't. We could, if we wanted to, but we don't. Hint: that's a big part of being an empire.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:56 PM
Well, if you think that then by extension you think that about our govt and as more and more of it has been put under the military anyway.

It's become more of a Praetorian Guard these days, not a group that provides objective information about security threats.

Put control of intelligence purely back in the hands of the military and we'll have MORE conflict. I guarantee that.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:56 PM
What kind of insanity is proposing that we dismantle our intelligence structure?

Why not disband the military too? If we don't need intelligence we must not need them either.

Ron Paul does not take the position that we don't need an intelligence structure. He just doesn't believe the CIA is all it's cracked out to be, and that the military could handle and act on intelligence a lot more swiftly and efficiently than the secretive CIA.

9/11 provides a great example of the collossal failure of the CIA. Not only did they empower Bin Ladin, but they failed to protect America when he got strong enough to bite the hand that fed him. And then there's Saddam Hussein, which the CIA had a role in propping up (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html). If the CIA was purely about gathering intelligence, that would be one thing. But that's clearly not what they're in the business of doing. They've caused America a tremendous amount of damage since their inception, and are rarely held accountable for it.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 05:57 PM
Put control of intelligence purely back in the hands of the military and we'll have MORE conflict. I guarantee that.

I doubt that. But would be open to hear some reasoning behind your position.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:57 PM
To be honest, I'm kind of stunned by this. I better not ever hear any of you Ron Paul supporters call Bush supporters "sheep" or "Bush-bots" etc.

Donger
12-12-2007, 05:59 PM
Ron Paul does not take the position that we don't need an intelligence structure. He just doesn't believe the CIA is all it's cracked out to be, and that the military could handle and act on intelligence a lot more swiftly and efficiently than the secretive CIA.

9/11 provides a great example of the collossal failure of the CIA. Not only did they empower Bin Ladin, but they failed to protect America when he got strong enough to bite the hand that fed him. And then there's Saddam Hussein, which the CIA had a role in propping up (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html). If the CIA was purely about gathering intelligence, that would be one thing. But that's clearly not what they're in the business of doing. They've caused America a tremendous amount of damage since their inception, and are rarely held accountable for it.

Did you really just have "intelligence" and "secretive" (in a bad way) in the same f*cking sentence?

CIA could have taken out bin Laden (on more than one occasion) but a certain politician got in the way.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 06:00 PM
To be honest, I'm kind of stunned by this. I better not ever hear any of you Ron Paul supporters call Bush supporters "sheep" or "Bush-bots" etc.


Oh, I do. And will.

I don't see the correlation? I think accountability in government is the correct path. If that makes me a sheep, then baa.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:02 PM
I doubt that. But would be open to hear some reasoning behind your position.

Pure logic and acknowledgment of human nature. I would argue that if you put all of the power behind intelligence gathering to the people who are trained and equipped to blow things up and kill people, there could be a tendency for them to skew intel to allow them to practice their profession.

Truman knew this. It's one of the reasons he wanted a civilian intel outfit.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 06:02 PM
again...

I would be open to hear some reasoning behind your position.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:03 PM
Oh, I do. And will.

I don't see the correlation? I think accountability in government is the correct path. If that makes me a sheep, then baa.

Baaa, indeed. You have know idea what this man proposes, but you follow him regardless.

Cochise
12-12-2007, 06:03 PM
Did you really just have "intelligence" and "secretive" (in a bad way) in the same f*cking sentence?

CIA could have taken out bin Laden (on more than one occasion) but a certain politician got in the way.

I know this is like arguing with a wall, but I wish someone would ask Ron Paul in a debate if he would like to abolish the CIA just so all of America could hear him say yes to that.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:03 PM
again...

Look up.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 06:04 PM
Pure logic and acknowledgment of human nature.


Oh Gahd... :rolleyes: :drool:


How ****ing weak.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:04 PM
I know this is like arguing with a wall, but I wish someone would ask Ron Paul in a debate if he would like to abolish the CIA just so all of America could hear him say yes to that.

Absolutely.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:05 PM
Oh Gahd... :rolleyes: :drool:


How ****ing weak.

Did you read the rest? Or am I the equivalent of Ron Paulism?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 06:07 PM
Baaa, indeed. You have know idea what this man proposes, but you follow him regardless.


I absolutely know what he's proposing. He doesn't make it any secret. He's literally the most accessible presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.com/
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:10 PM
I absolutely know what he's proposing. He doesn't make it any secret. He's literally the most accessible presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.com/
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/

Does he provide the requested information (which countries will we be leaving) in any of those? Or is it all of them?

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 06:13 PM
What kind of insanity is proposing that we dismantle our intelligence structure?
What part of putting intel under the military instead do you not understand?
There you go again, changing what was said around to something not said.

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 06:13 PM
Pure logic and acknowledgment of human nature. I would argue that if you put all of the power behind intelligence gathering to the people who are trained and equipped to blow things up and kill people, there could be a tendency for them to skew intel to allow them to practice their profession.

Truman knew this. It's one of the reasons he wanted a civilian intel outfit.

I wholeheartedly agree. Having DIA and CIA (among others) is a good thing. Different institutional "perspectives" are an asset in intelligence gathering, IMO. Even the folks in the Kremlin recognized that, which is why they had the KGB and GRU (and others I'm probably unfamiliar with).


It's become more of a Praetorian Guard these days, not a group that provides objective information about security threats.

I suggest you reexamine the role of the Praetorian Guard in ancient Rome. The CIA isn't even close to being "Household/Bodyguard Troops" for the President or senior military leadership. The PG was never an "intelligence" organization. Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure the CIA never killed a President (as the PG eventually started offing the Emperor on occasion) no matter what Oliver Stone might convince some people to believe.
Don't forget pre-emptive war was invented by Hitler.

As for the idea that "pre-emptive war" was invented by Hitler, how do you account for the fact that Augustine wrote about it in De libero arbitrio (though he used the term preemptive self-defense, but the same concepts), centuries before the Austrian Corporal came to power?

Also, Julius Caesar attacked the German tribes led by Ariovistus for the express purpose of dissuading them from crossing the Rhine and settling in Gaul. Again, pre-emptive warfare.

Out of curiosity, in your view was Israel justified in defending itself in June of 1967, or should they have sat there waiting for the UAE to attack and overrun their nation? Keep in mind they had very solid intel they were going to be massively attacked within 24 hours.

patteeu
12-12-2007, 06:13 PM
Don't forget pre-emptive war was invented by Hitler.

The neo-isolationist lies get tiring.

patteeu
12-12-2007, 06:15 PM
So what do you, or Ron Paul define as "imminent danger". A missle heading our way? A terrorist bomb going off in the populated downtown area of a city? Just curious.....

Yes, but after the missile hits or the bomb goes off, that's the end of the threat and it's back down into our rabbit hole until we're threatened again.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. Having DIA and CIA (among others) is a good thing. Different institutional "perspectives" are an asset in intelligence gathering, IMO. Even the folks in the Kremlin recognized it, which is why they had the KGB and GRU (and others I'm probably unfamiliar with).

BEP- I suggest you re-read the role of the Praetorian Guard in ancient Rome. The CIA isn't even close to being "Household Troops" for the President.

I agree completely. This Ron Paul group sounds like they have a propensity for idealism, without much regard for reality.

Giving the military, even ours, full control of the intelligence world would be a massive mistake.

I wonder how much of this is just, "Let's get rid of that big, secretive, evil CIA" without much thought or knowledge of what is at stake and how many times CIA has pulled our collective nuts out of the fire.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 06:20 PM
Did you read the rest? Or am I the equivalent of Ron Paulism?


No I read it... It was weak.

Human nature is why the founders tied government's hands in the first place. I've seen no evidence that the military couldn't adequately handle our intelligence needs. I could, however, point to a laundry list of failures that the CIA has caused that has put our country in peril, including their tremendous failure on 9/11.

patteeu
12-12-2007, 06:20 PM
... including empowering Bin Ladin....

Can you explain what you mean by this in anything other than the most vague terms?

Taco John
12-12-2007, 06:22 PM
Does he provide the requested information (which countries will we be leaving) in any of those? Or is it all of them?


Have a look for yourself... There's tons to explore:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.com/
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:25 PM
No I read it... It was weak.

Human nature is why the founders tied government's hands in the first place. I've seen no evidence that the military couldn't adequately handle our intelligence needs. I could, however, point to a laundry list of failures that the CIA has caused that has put our country in peril, including their tremendous failure on 9/11.

I just gave you the biggest one, in my 'weak' (yet accurate) explanation. If you chose not to accept it, fine.

Truman knew it, perhaps one of our most pragmatic POTUS.

And, if you think that the new Ron Paul Military Intelligence Collective wouldn't have even more failures, you are wrong.

It's a bad idea, TJ.

Donger
12-12-2007, 06:28 PM
Have a look for yourself... There's tons to explore:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.com/
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/

It's a simple question, one which I hope you could answer. You seem up-to-date on this man, so I was hoping you could save me the effort.

* Well, a quick Google search shows that he proposes pulling out of ROK and removing our support for Taiwan.

There goes my vote.

Iowanian
12-12-2007, 07:00 PM
tacoPaul prefers a defensive strategy that isn't exactly a new concept.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/graphics/opposum5.jpg

The only reason it has any effect, is there are enough of them to replace the ones that get eaten.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 07:12 PM
Who is going to attack us?

A bunch of frightened demagogues around here...

*flapping arms* Muslims R gunna KILL us!!!!111

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 07:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. Having DIA and CIA (among others) is a good thing. Different institutional "perspectives" are an asset in intelligence gathering, IMO. Even the folks in the Kremlin recognized that, which is why they had the KGB and GRU (and others I'm probably unfamiliar with).
We've made huge financial outlays for intel to have so many intel failures, which have been fairly continuous,some significant, to say the CIA has served us well. I think this agency can be considered a failure eventhough not everyone in it is. Again, it gets misused by presidents who bend it their hidden agendas. It's supposed to provide objective information to protect our national security—not a personal toy of the executive branch. This is why more restraints have been placed on it by congress. It should more than pay for itself which it doesn't.

I suggest you reexamine the role of the Praetorian Guard in ancient Rome. The CIA isn't even close to being "Household/Bodyguard Troops" for the President or senior military leadership. The PG was never an "intelligence" organization. Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure the CIA never killed a President (as the PG eventually started offing the Emperor on occasion) no matter what Oliver Stone might convince some people to believe.

Depends on what aspect you think I was comparing them to. Obviously, I'm not saying our CIA has killed our presidents, but our CIA has been misused by presidents for their personal agendas secretly using intrigue and assassination of other leaders to the detriment of our nation at times resulting in harmful blowback. ( Like the Iranian Hostage Crisis). Americans react not understanding how these things happen to us at times because these things are kept secret for the agendas of those in power or connected to it. Operating secretly isn't bad in itself, but that secrecy is ripe for abuse especially in unethical hands and even more so when we are getting more of an imperial presidency. Even the PG disintegrated at some point into a ruthless mercenary and meddling force.


As for the idea that "pre-emptive war" was invented by Hitler, how do you account for the fact that Augustine wrote about it in De libero arbitrio (though he used the term preemptive self-defense, but the same concepts), centuries before the Austrian Corporal came to power?

Also, Julius Caesar attacked the German tribes led by Ariovistus for the express purpose of dissuading them from crossing the Rhine and settling in Gaul. Again, pre-emptive warfare.
Well, if you want you can go back even earlier than that to Xerxes, the Babylonians and the Assyrians. This nonsense IS the operating basis of empires. They conquer lands in general, sometimes under pretext, even if earlier Rome started out on the basis of defense.

Anyhow, I thought I attributed the statement to Ike:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

Serves well for the modern age I think. I have no desire to compare a modern enlightened republic of the people ( Germany was a democracy) to an ancient time of constant conquest, invasion and subjugation of other peoples by emperors.

Out of curiosity, in your view was Israel justified in defending itself in June of 1967, or should they have sat there waiting for the UAE to attack and overrun their nation? Keep in mind they had very solid intel they were going to be massively attacked within 24 hours.
Please note, what I said about an imminent attack earlier in this thread.
I'm talking about attacking someone who might attack you someday in the future or just because they say nasty things about us. Sorry, but that's not enough and is immoral imo. If you're wrong, and we were wrong on Iraq, you become the aggressor.

Donger
12-12-2007, 07:16 PM
Who is going to attack us?

A bunch of frightened demagogues around here...

*flapping arms* Muslims R gunna KILL us!!!!111

Well, if I had to bet, I'd say radical Muslims would be the safest.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 07:17 PM
I recall that Paul was asked about the CIA in a recent debate. He did acknowledge the need for intel, but added that we need to have people who interpret it correctly. Seems to me he's after some sort of reform.

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 07:28 PM
We've made huge financial outlays for intel to have so many intel failures, which have been fairly continuous,some significant, to say the CIA has served us well. I think this agency can be considered a failure eventhough not everyone in it is. Again, it gets misused by presidents who bend it their hidden agendas. It's supposed to provide objective information to protect our national security—not a personal toy of the executive branch. This is why more restraints have been placed on it by congress.

That's the nature of intelligence work. The failures are trumpeted by those opposed, and the very nature of success means most people never find out about them. I can understand how that would lead to an (incorrect, IMO) opinion of that service as utterly incompetent. I'm certainly not saying the CIA doesn't need to be kept on a leash, only that it's not quite the rabid dog it's being painted as.

I agree with the sentiment that some degree of reform is needed in the intel community, but I would never support putting it exclusively under the military.

It should more than pay for itself which it doesn't.
For-profit intelligence gathering might be one of the worst notions since the Romans came up with "Tax Farming". It's the same reason I think it's a bad idea to let LEA's keep the proceeds from drug busts or other crimes.

JMO.


Depends on what aspect you think I was comparing them to. Obviously, I'm not saying our CIA has killed our presidents, but our CIA has been misused by presidents for their personal agendas secretly using intrigue and assassination of other leaders to the detriment of our nation at times resulting in harmful blowback. ( Like the Iranian Hostage Crisis). Americans react not understanding how these things happen to us at times because these things are kept secret for the agendas of those in power or connected to it. Operating secretly isn't bad in itself, but that secrecy is ripe for abuse especially in unethical hands and even more so when we are getting more of an imperial presidency. Even the PG disintegrated at some point into a ruthless mercenary and meddling force.

Well, I was presuming you were comparing the CIA to the Praetorian Guard, a military organization. I felt it was relevant to point out that the Praetorians were never involved in anything approaching "intelligence" work, which is the raison d'etre for the CIA. That being so, I found the comparison extremely odd.


Well, if you want you can go back even earlier than that to Xerxes, the Babylonians and the Assyrians. This nonsense IS the operating basis of empires. They conquer lands in general, sometimes under pretext, even if earlier Rome started out on the basis of defense.

Anyhow, I thought I attributed the statement to Ike:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

Serves well for the modern age I think. I have no desire to compare a modern enlightened republic of the people ( Germany was a democracy) to an ancient time of constant conquest, invasion and subjugation of other peoples by emperors.

So we agree that Hitler did not invent the notion of pre-emptive war. I'm not sure why you feel posting a factually incorrect quote from Ike supports that argument, but each to their own.

BTW- Before it became an Empire, Rome was also a "modern, enlightened republic of the people", especially once the people elected Tribunes. Of course, that didn't really help the Etruscans.


Please note, what I said about an imminent attack earlier in this thread.
I'm talking about attacking someone who might attack you someday in the future or just because they say nasty things about us. Sorry, but that's not enough and is immoral imo.

I missed that comment. Apologies. I gather that means you do agree that Israel was justified in kicking the crap out of the UAE.

Who is going to attack us?

A bunch of frightened demagogues around here...

*flapping arms* Muslims R gunna KILL us!!!!111

I'm certainly not frightened, nor am I a "demagogue".

I simply believe in the truism that an ounce of preventative is worth a pound of cure. :shrug:

To preempt a misinterpretation, I'll go ahead and directly state that IMO Intelligence work (best performed by both civilian and military agencies for the differing POV's) is far cheaper than picking up the pieces after an intelligence failure, whether caused by incompetence or absence.

The CIA needs to be reformed, not wiped out. The latter notion is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 07:51 PM
That's the nature of intelligence work. The failures are trumpeted by those opposed to intelligence work, and the very nature of successes means most people never find out about them.
Like who? What successes? At what costs? ( $40 billion s/g per year we spend)
It's more suited for an empire than a country. Still, they failed in some of their primary missions:

• Failure to predict the economic and political collapse of the Soviet economy during the 1980's, whereby we spent billions of dollars on unnecessary defense spending
• Failure to predict the Soviet acquisition of the atomic bomb
• Failure to predict China's entry into the Korean War
• Failure to predict the abdication of the Shah of Iran in 1979 along with the Islamic clerics taking his place resulting in the hostage crisis
• Falsely reported about Iraq due to Tenet being a political lackey not by other analysts
• Failure to predict the Cuban missile crisis, bringing us to the brink of nuclear war
• Failure to predict the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000...etc. etc.


So we agree that Hitler did not invent the notion of pre-emptive war. Good.
Not post Enlightment, no. AFAIR, our Founders found the idea abhorrent,

BTW- Before it became an Empire, Rome was also a "modern, enlightened republic of the people".
Well, for that time but hardly by our standards today. However, we were once a republic too. That's like saying Greece was a democracy which by our standards is a joke, and by their standards ours is a joke.

I missed that comment. Apologies. I gather that means you do agree that Israel was justified in kicking the crap out of the UAE.
Actually, I don't know much about it. I just thought I'd point out that imminent danger is a valid exception to the rule,t which proves the rule. ( If that is the case here). I don't believe absolutes are obtainable in our world...but I don't think making a habit of pre-emption, the direction we're moving in more and more, is a good policy. Once it's easily accepted it won't lead to much good. Therein lies the danger.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 07:52 PM
For-profit intelligence gathering might be one of the worst notions since the Romans came up with "Tax Farming". It's the same reason I think it's a bad idea to let LEA's keep the proceeds from drug busts or other crimes.
Who recommended this? I didn't—nor Paul.

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 08:05 PM
Who recommended this? I didn't—nor Paul.

:hmmm:


It should more than pay for itself which it doesn't.

If something "More than pays for itself" that can only be counted as profit, AFAIK. I'm not sure how else to interpret that statement. :shrug:

Two other points:

1) Rome was a representative republic at the period I am discussing. Citizens elected representatives that spoke for them in the government. The masses elected Tribunes which had the right of Veto over decisions made by the Senate. That sounds rather "enlightened and modern" to me, which is likely why our founding fathers used it as a rough model. Not everyone had the vote in that Republic, nor did they in ours.

2) I'd suggest the "failure" that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis was more than balanced by the astounding success of the CIA and British Intel working with Col. Penkovsky, who informed JFK of the weakness of the Soviet Strategic Forces which allowed JFK to stare Kruschev down. Sadly, the GRU caught up with Col. Penkovsky shortly thereafter, and sent him alive down a conveyor belt into the crematorium at the Aquarium (GRU HQ).

As for other successes, as I said...the nature of intelligence work means you seldom if ever hear of them. When they pull off an operation, why on Earth would they advertise that fact? It might risk other operations, agents, or methods.

Regarding Korea, I believe there were plenty of intel warnings about China, but Doug MacArthur was trying to provoke a war, so he encamped on the Yalu while calling on his friend Gen. Lemay to forward-deploy B-50's to Guam without authorization.

As for Iran in '79, I don't believe that was a failure by the CIA as much as an utter CF by the State Dept., State Department Intelligence (yes, Foggy Bottom had their own), and Brzezinski who met with Khomeni, and then informed Carter he was "a saint". Carter chose to listen to the State Department...and the rest is history.

Another good example would be the intel ops that followed the Able Archer exercises in '83, which showed Reagan that the USSR was dangerously misinterpreting the maneuvers as a preliminary to war. That led directly to more communication, and less sabre-rattling. That dialogue and thaw helped bring Gorbachev to the forefront of the Politburo at a time when the neo-Stalinist Grigory Romanov was being groomed to take the reigns of government. I firmly believe that if Romanov had been in power instead of Gorby, Eastern Europe in '89 would have been a bloodier version of Prague in '68, or Hungary in '56. From what I've read of the man, he would have sooner started a war than accept the demise of the USSR. I'd say that intel paid off in spades in the long run, even if it wasn't as big a payoff as some might have wanted.

I also believe that "spending the Soviets to death" was the unspoken objective of the Arms Race of the 1980's. I think we knew their weakness, and were exploiting it by forcing them into a race they could not win. JMO.

I don't think making a habit of pre-emption, the direction we're moving in more and more, is a good policy. Once it's easily accepted it won't lead to much good. Therein lies the danger.

On this point, we agree. We should certainly not make a habit of it, but there are rare circumstances where it may well be necessary.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 08:47 AM
tacoPaul prefers a defensive strategy that isn't exactly a new concept.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/graphics/opposum5.jpg

The only reason it has any effect, is there are enough of them to replace the ones that get eaten.


LMAO

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 10:03 AM
If something "More than pays for itself" that can only be counted as profit, AFAIK. I'm not sure how else to interpret that statement.
I'm not talking about financial profit...I'm talking about value for our money and results. You're being too reasonable excusing them. It's not considered a successful agency. In fact there's been several books out, one recently, about it's many failures. I can name many more, but that's another debate than this thread warrants.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 10:09 AM
Also, Adept, with a policy of neutrality in foreign policy, much of the CIA would be streamlined. So his view on the CIA, goes hand-and-hand with his world view.