@lakawakDuring the peroid of the Iran/Iraqi war in the 1980's..."You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.Also, in 1982, Iraq was suddenly removed from the list of 'terrorist sponsors', at Reagans request, enabling the free trade of weapons and technologies.In late 1983, Reagan allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Egypt to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq, but he refused.Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq in December 1983, under the banner of envoy of the President, and Iraq called this 'the beginning of a new era in relations with America'The U.S. also directly supplied Iraq with biological weapons. According to a 1994 Senate Committee Report, "From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."Anti-personnel cluster bombs were a U.S. favorite. "CIA Director [William] Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect `force multiplier,' for Iraq," Teicher states, and "the CIA authorized, approved and assisted Cardoen [the supplier] in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq."Over an 8-year period, the U.S. gave Iraq some $5 billion in economic aid, and encouraged its allies to provide Iraq billions worth of arms. The British sold Iraq tanks, missile parts, and artillery; the French provided howitzers, Exocet missiles, and Mirage jet fighters; and the West Germans supplied technology used in Iraqi plants that reportedly produced nerve and mustard gas.You might want to do a bit of research yourself....
cliffzdude - "Put your heads up your asses, the sand, or whatever the f**k you can grab. The s**t is about to hit the f**king fan and if you don't realize it the DRAFT will commence quicker than you can say "But what about my iPod???!!!"The draft is already here... look at all the servicemen and women serving two and three tours of duty overseas and getting sent right back over there. That's a forced draft right there. Don't believe the political double-speak: reinstating a traditional draft is just around the corner.The political powers that be would have us fear Iran and their nuclear capabilities so that the next time there's a large scale act of terrorism in the US or abroad, the sheeple of America will be hyped up enough to settle for another Iraq-like situation... for those chess players you'll know the strategy. It's all about controlling the center square. Everybody be afraid of Iran. Who cares that they are years away from being a real threat. Sure, North Korea has the capability to wreak havoc in Asia and the US western seaboard, but who the hell cares about that?
"Appeasement or not, it's not a question of IF Iran develops nukes it's only a question of WHEN."So let's piss them off now and gain a whole country full of people that want to kill us as opposed to a minority of people that want to kill us. Considering Iran isn't the only country in the world that has terrorists it doesn't seem too smart to force our will on them when that will only justify terrorists reasoning for attacking the US.But your argument is probably to go after all terrorists and countries that have terrorists and destroy them all or EXTERMINATE them if you will. Do you see where your logic is going? But I'm sure you could come up with some justifications for your actions I know Hitler did.Terrorism is not a country, it's not a military force, it's not a race of people, it's an ideology and therefore shouldn't be fought like you would a traditional enemy.
Here is a portion of the testimony before the U.S.- Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee given by Paula A. DeSutter, Assistant Secretary for Verification and Compliance on September 17, 2003:"Iran's attempts to explain why it needs an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle are simply not credible. We are being asked to believe that Iran needs to have the ability to mine, process, and enrich uranium for reactors that do not yet exist and that it is necessary to support its domestic power needs. Yet Iran does not have enough indigenous uranium resources to fuel even one reactor over its lifetime. Moreover, it burns off enough gas at its wellheads to generate electricity equivalent to the output of four Bushehr-type reactors. Finally, and most importantly, if there were truly "peaceful and transparent" reasons for Iran's acquisition of these technologies, why would Iran hide these activities from the IAEA? In fact, the IAEA only learned of the many hidden Iranian nuclear facilities when the rest of the world heard about it in the press..."<a class="user" href="http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/24494.htm">http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/24494.htm</a>A few more links of interest:"..Iran, rich in oil and natural gas, built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years. It was forced to acknowledge the large-scale program and accept an outside investigation after an Iranian exile group, listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, publicly revealed the location of Iran's largest nuclear facility, in Natanz, four years ago."<a class="user" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100143.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100143.html</a>"After months of defiant rhetoric over its nuclear programme, Iran formally rejected an international demand that it suspend uranium enrichment yesterday to allay western fears that it wants to build an atomic bomb.""The rejection, in a 23-page response submitted by the country's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to a broad-ranging incentive package, set Iran on a collision course with the UN security council."<a class="user" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1856156,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1856156,00.html</a>Is it really any wonder there are a quite a few people who have doubts about Iran's intentions?
Watch the Documentary on the Military channel called "Raid on the Reactor" It will show you that it is possible to take out another countries(Iraq's) nuclear reactor with military precision and grace. Thank you Israel for taking the courage to deal with a problem that would have bitten us in the ass.
Closed AccountSep 15, 2006
i don't doubt that they are "going nuclear" the real question is what to do about it? sanctions? arms discussions? war?
Closed AccountSep 16, 2006
@lakawakDuring the peroid of the Iran/Iraqi war in the 1980's..."You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.Also, in 1982, Iraq was suddenly removed from the list of 'terrorist sponsors', at Reagans request, enabling the free trade of weapons and technologies.In late 1983, Reagan allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Egypt to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq, but he refused.Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq in December 1983, under the banner of envoy of the President, and Iraq called this 'the beginning of a new era in relations with America'The U.S. also directly supplied Iraq with biological weapons. According to a 1994 Senate Committee Report, "From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."Anti-personnel cluster bombs were a U.S. favorite. "CIA Director [William] Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect `force multiplier,' for Iraq," Teicher states, and "the CIA authorized, approved and assisted Cardoen [the supplier] in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq."Over an 8-year period, the U.S. gave Iraq some $5 billion in economic aid, and encouraged its allies to provide Iraq billions worth of arms. The British sold Iraq tanks, missile parts, and artillery; the French provided howitzers, Exocet missiles, and Mirage jet fighters; and the West Germans supplied technology used in Iraqi plants that reportedly produced nerve and mustard gas.You might want to do a bit of research yourself....
thatchimpSep 16, 2006
cliffzdude - "Put your heads up your asses, the sand, or whatever the f**k you can grab. The s**t is about to hit the f**king fan and if you don't realize it the DRAFT will commence quicker than you can say "But what about my iPod???!!!"The draft is already here... look at all the servicemen and women serving two and three tours of duty overseas and getting sent right back over there. That's a forced draft right there. Don't believe the political double-speak: reinstating a traditional draft is just around the corner.The political powers that be would have us fear Iran and their nuclear capabilities so that the next time there's a large scale act of terrorism in the US or abroad, the sheeple of America will be hyped up enough to settle for another Iraq-like situation... for those chess players you'll know the strategy. It's all about controlling the center square. Everybody be afraid of Iran. Who cares that they are years away from being a real threat. Sure, North Korea has the capability to wreak havoc in Asia and the US western seaboard, but who the hell cares about that?
youareretardedSep 16, 2006
"Appeasement or not, it's not a question of IF Iran develops nukes it's only a question of WHEN."So let's piss them off now and gain a whole country full of people that want to kill us as opposed to a minority of people that want to kill us. Considering Iran isn't the only country in the world that has terrorists it doesn't seem too smart to force our will on them when that will only justify terrorists reasoning for attacking the US.But your argument is probably to go after all terrorists and countries that have terrorists and destroy them all or EXTERMINATE them if you will. Do you see where your logic is going? But I'm sure you could come up with some justifications for your actions I know Hitler did.Terrorism is not a country, it's not a military force, it's not a race of people, it's an ideology and therefore shouldn't be fought like you would a traditional enemy.
macliberalSep 16, 2006
This is all hysteria created by the American right wing press to continue war on this planet, this ranks right up there with Sadam being a threat
koosebaneSep 16, 2006
Here is a portion of the testimony before the U.S.- Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee given by Paula A. DeSutter, Assistant Secretary for Verification and Compliance on September 17, 2003:"Iran's attempts to explain why it needs an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle are simply not credible. We are being asked to believe that Iran needs to have the ability to mine, process, and enrich uranium for reactors that do not yet exist and that it is necessary to support its domestic power needs. Yet Iran does not have enough indigenous uranium resources to fuel even one reactor over its lifetime. Moreover, it burns off enough gas at its wellheads to generate electricity equivalent to the output of four Bushehr-type reactors. Finally, and most importantly, if there were truly "peaceful and transparent" reasons for Iran's acquisition of these technologies, why would Iran hide these activities from the IAEA? In fact, the IAEA only learned of the many hidden Iranian nuclear facilities when the rest of the world heard about it in the press..."<a class="user" href="http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/24494.htm">http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/24494.htm</a>A few more links of interest:"..Iran, rich in oil and natural gas, built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years. It was forced to acknowledge the large-scale program and accept an outside investigation after an Iranian exile group, listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, publicly revealed the location of Iran's largest nuclear facility, in Natanz, four years ago."<a class="user" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100143.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100143.html</a>"After months of defiant rhetoric over its nuclear programme, Iran formally rejected an international demand that it suspend uranium enrichment yesterday to allay western fears that it wants to build an atomic bomb.""The rejection, in a 23-page response submitted by the country's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to a broad-ranging incentive package, set Iran on a collision course with the UN security council."<a class="user" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1856156,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1856156,00.html</a>Is it really any wonder there are a quite a few people who have doubts about Iran's intentions?
cybeSep 16, 2006
It seems the mainstream media can make muricans believe just about anything.
kingygkSep 17, 2006
Watch the Documentary on the Military channel called "Raid on the Reactor" It will show you that it is possible to take out another countries(Iraq's) nuclear reactor with military precision and grace. Thank you Israel for taking the courage to deal with a problem that would have bitten us in the ass.