What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
57 Comments
- ahsen74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31The war drums are beating again. I hope this time sanity prevails.
- newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31EXCERPTS:
The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs.
But some in the White House, including in Cheney's office, had made just such an assumption—that "the lack of evidence means they must have it," the former official said.
[Seymour Hersh:] A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. "They’re not looking for a smoking gun," the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. "They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission."
The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.'s analysis. "The D.I.A. is fighting the agency's conclusions, and disputing its approach," the former senior intelligence official said.
Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, "but they can't stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community." - noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28"Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again."
- newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19You seem to forget that a while ago the IAEA found highly-enriched uranium, too, in Iran.
Western media made a big hoopla over it at the time. Later, however, even Pakistan confirmed Iran's assertion that the contamination traces were leftovers on equipment that Iran had purchased (probably through the black market, and in all likelihood through Khan's network) from Pakistan.
The point is that the weapons-grade trace of enriched uranium was not domestically produced in Iran. But this conclusion scarcely made it to the front pages of western media.
Although the jury is still out on the latest plutonium find that you have referred to, it is plausible that the same will be concluded in this case.
Jumping to conclusions based on paranoia only pushes the interested parties to war, which is unhelpful, to say the least.
We should all be concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, not just in Iran, but also in Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, US, France, UK, and elsewhere.
But the world can't fight such proliferation by fueling mass hysteria, or by bullying tactics.
Any nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons will eventually possess them. Bombings may slow the process, but eventually the ones bent on acquiring such weapons will succeed.
The way to fight such proliferation is to remove the causes behind the insecurities that prompts some countries to pursue such weapons.
Do you think Pakistan would have sought nukes if India had been a friendly nation devoid of nukes? Do you think India would have pursued nukes if it sensed no security threat from Pakistan and China? I would give the answer, "unlikely," to these questions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Other than CIA, It's the same with IAEA :
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldnews&storyID=2006-11-14T215037Z_01_N14304588_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN.xml
"The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency said on Tuesday it could not confirm if Iran's nuclear intentions were entirely peaceful and that Tehran was pressing ahead with uranium enrichment despite the threat of sanctions."
So, can we conclude that just because there is no evidence to prove their innocence then they are guilty?! And they should be sanctioned?
This has been going on for a half a dozen years, shouldn't they find concrete evidence if Iran was really after nukes?
Is it not somehow Iraq all over again? How do you feel when you see Cheney, WMDs and Oil in the same story? - omgitscolin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Good, no evidence of a threat. So when do we get to start bombing them?
- newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16There is a standard technique that the unscrupulous use against their opponents or competitors; it is called FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).
Look it up on the Web to see some of the history behind it. For example, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt
When a government employs FUD, the mainstream populace rarely questions the sources of the government's claims or even the logic (or illogic, rather) of the government's justifications for misadventures---whether the issue is foreign-policy related or pertains to domestic matters.
Of course, Washington is not the only player in such games. Other regimes, too, use FUD effectively for a range of purposes, such as silencing domestic dissent. - Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"the lack of evidence means they must have it,"
Is this the Cold War. - newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15EXCERPTS, Part II:
[Vice President Dick] Cheney's relationship with [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and [Robert] Gates's nomination [to replace Rumsfeld] was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the Vice-President's influence in the White House could be challenged.
The only reason Gates would take the job, after turning down an earlier offer to serve as the new Director of National Intelligence, [a] former high-level C.I.A. official said, was that "the President's father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker"—former aides of the first President Bush—"piled on, and the President finally had to accept adult supervision."
A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush Administration told me that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his son “are saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual. The issue for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to isolate Cheney and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice”—the Secretary of State—“a chance to perform.” The combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the general added, “tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can’t do it.” - kooft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Funny, wasn't Valerie Plame working on Iran nuclear program intelligence? A conspiracy theorist might begin to believe that she was outed intentionally, not to just to discredit Joseph Wilson (Plame's husband), but perhaps to put a blind spot in the CIA's field of view where Iran is concerned. Why? Perhaps Iran isn't working on nuclear weapons and if it gets out that the administration knows it, they'll lose the justification for an invasion, or whatever action the administration wants to take.
- newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I hope the White House cleans up the mess it has already created, before going on yet another misadventure. The killings in Iraq and Afghanistan are only the most visible features of his miscalculations.
As some of the returning veterans who are now homeless, and you get an idea of the more hidden aspects of Washington's policies in the past six years.
There are so many others that one does not know where to begin.
Sigh. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"We're left with the president. What would he or the republican party gain? Yes he could do it, but why?"
Those are the precise questions we've all been asking about the war in Iraq. Don't have rational answers there, either. Not exactly comforting. - newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I don't understand a couple of points that you made:
1. You said "Secondly, do you guys really think the congress is about to go to war with IRAN?"
Congress has rarely "gone to war."
The last time Congress actually declared war was, I believe, in 1941, after Germany declared war on the US.
Not even in the Vietnam War did the Congress declare war! It was officially dubbed a "police action" by the US.
You seem to answer yourself when you say that Bush can bypass Congress in going to war; he, as well as many of his predecessors, have done exactly that.
2. You also said the "US wants to forget about any iranian weapons programmes (as the iranians _claim they have_)."
Are you saying that the Iranians have claimed or boasted about having a nuclear weapons program? Where did you learn this? If you can find a reference without undue burden to you, please share.
Thanks. - redDragon43, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I guarantee you guys come election time, in 2008, the bush administration will miraculously find WMD in Iran and revive the hunt for Osama. Geez they are so predictable.
- D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Of course it isn't Iraq all over again! The Q is an N this time!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8First of all, I wouldn't trust Pakistan statements about the Iranian facilities further than I could throw a plutonium centrifuge.
Secondly, do you guys really think the congress is about to go to war with IRAN? Reality check: there aren't resources enough to take and hold Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Plus, it'd be political suicide.
Now, I expect the President could bypass the congress and order an attack (I seem to recall he gave himself the right to do that a couple of years ago), but I fail to see the point. Yes, it'd screw up things for the dem congress, who'd be forced to use a draft to shore up the military, but it'd still be a republican president giving the order. Once again a political suicide.
So what is this all about? None of it makes any sense to me. If anything I'd be inclined to suspect this simply means the US wants to forget about any iranian weapons programmes (as the iranians _claim they have_). - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why is what Iran SAYS about Israel, without the means to do anything about it, our problem?
Israel may very well have scammed us into war in Iraq. I have had enough of Israel for a while. They should call us back around 2040. - kooft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@klawz
"And the only way to do this is what? Would you say to convert to Islam? Because that is my understanding, you give a chance to convert, and if they choose not to, they, the infidels are your enemy in a holy war - that shall not end until chaos is all around, and or everyone converts."
I believe he was pointing to the fact that the US helped arm and supported (via intelligence) Iraq's invasion of Iran, in which Iraq used WMD's against the Iranians. Or how about when Iran's democratically elected (or as close to it as we've ever seen over there) Prime Minister was ousted in a bloody coup by the CIA and British Intelligence? Why wouldn't Iran want nuclear weapons? If America were facing a powerful adversary that had nuclear weapons and wanted to change its system of government, would America want a nuclear deterrent?
"Additionally, I'm glad I'm not alone in agreeing that some 10th century way of thinking nation(s) should not be allowed to play with the big guns, if you will. Trust me, I know eventually someone who doesn't respect the life of other humans will get them, and use them - we can only hope to delay it."
Contrary to popular belief, there are many Iranians who don't have a care for Islam. Actually, many ethnic Persians resent the Arab/Muslim invasion. A lot of history and culture was destroyed during this invasion. The Islamic government is a recent thing and only had such a huge following because the American installed Shah had not only impoverished many civilians but also ran a brutal intelligence service called SAVAK (which ironically was setup with help from the CIA).
Nations don't change overnight and the youth in Iran will be in power before too long, just give them time. Conversely, if the US launches a massive attack it will only bolster the position of the Ayatollahs. - scbalazs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There are going to be 70 million people in Iran! Nuclear energy could be a huge boon to their economy, which _may_ lead to increased human rights if you believe that theory. If we return to dialogue and subtle, quiet encouragement of the moderates in Iran instead of drum-beating, we could eventually have another ally (or at least non-enemy). Yes, the extremists have the loudest voices now, and Ahmadinejad is dangerous, but Iran was heading down a different path not long ago (pre-"Axis of Evil") and we missed the opportunity.
BTW, back to that 70 million, what chance do you think we'd have trying to take control in Iran when we can't keep order in Iraq or Afghanistan, which combined still have fewer people than Iran. Not to mention, Iran has a very different history and culture, both in general and specifically regarding war. Despite the Islamic Revolution, this country doesn't have the history of Saddam-style violent oppression, or long guerilla civil wars, or just European colonization, as Iraq or Afghanistan. A war in Iran would be a hard, long, and brutal war, and would certainly escalate to a regional or global war. We would lose any allies we have left in the Muslim world, anti-US extremists would gain greater power, certainly someone _would_ get nuclear weapons and we would be looking at attacks on a far greater scale than 9/11.
Whether or not invading Afghanistan or Iraq was right or wrong (one of each in my opinion), any idea of trying to repeat this with Iran is just foolish and extremely dangerous. We _have_ to look for another way. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pfff... Since when the existence of evidence ever mattered?? :)
- kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@klawz
Sorry for double post, but I didn't see this bit from your post:
"I think not. I think that certain countries are "mature" enough to know when to use WMD, and some are not."
Iran has had WMD's since, at least, the Iran-Iraq war. In that time there have been precisely 0 mustard gas attacks on the US. Coincidentally there have also been 0 sarin attacks on the US. The list goes on, but the point is, Iran is apparently "mature" enough to know when to use WMD's and despite being run by the crazy Islamo-fascists, they haven't launched a massive WMD attack on Israel, the US or any other country for that matter (with the exception of Iraq in the war, only after Iraq had used them first).
So, now that they're "mature" enough, why is it that they can't have any nuclear weapons? - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh THAT's where they went.
Right.
I hear the Easter Bunny hides out there, too. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No, I disagree there. I think it's only too obvious what the motivation for the Iraq war was:
it was supposed to be a six-month-war where the US troops were greeted as liberators, and which a) established a strategic US presence in the middle east, and b) paid for itself through oil and reconstruction contracts.
A brief propaganda war which was supposed to show how tough the president was and deliver him the victory in the presidential election (and it did!). Basically a re-run of Afghanistan.
I don't see any motivation for attacking Iran, and as I do not believe Bush is outright insane I don't think there'll be any full-scale attack on Iran. *Possibly* air attacks. - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What?! No weapons of mass destruction? How dare they! Invade, oh land of the free, invade!
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Watch this report get buried in favor of rampant speculation when the next terrorist attack happens.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@newspigeon:
1) So you too agree it is extremely unlikely the congress would declare war? Good, then we've removed the dems from the equation.
We're left with the president. What would he or the republican party gain? Yes he could do it, but why?
2) Sorry, I was mistaken. I had read a statement by Ahmadinejad saying that they were close to nuclear capability, but when I check he meant _nuclear fuel production_ not _weapons capability_. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Azur
You are confusing the motive with the sales pitch. Israel and the US agreed that the US could have the best endgame for the oil era and Israel could have the US destroy every government that could possibly be a threat.
It didn't work out that way. Iran was supposed to be the next step in that plan. - Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6here we go again!
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9For once, the CIA doesn't want to start a war with a country we consider hostile? What's wrong with these people?
At least we've got the DIA to clean up after their failure and help launch us into a preemptive strike. Patriotism isn't dead yet!
/sarcasm - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Iran is saying mean things about Israel and has no means to do anything about Israel. So we should spend a trillion dollars, risk destroying our Army, and put our children into tax slavery for the sake of Israel?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Israel is a terrorist state, you cannot believe a thing that their government says
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you look at Iran and the U.S.A., which group is more tolerant of other religions, I would say with the word "Islamofascist" being thrown around so freely over here by just about everyone and the blatant hatred of those of the muslim faith that it is the US that is the danger. I read a lot of news from Iran as well as the U.S. and other places and I am yet to see them use derogatory remarks about other peoples religious views, whether or not they share that same view
- masscrazy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amazing this made the front page. Im sure 99% diggs were non-american.
- justahuman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2what if iran has nuclear weapons...america ,china,india etc etc has one..so y iran is a such a big deal motherfukers
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@williamdyer
They have freedom of religion in Iran, and Israel is a major threat in the middle east. They are a colonial terrorist state. Look at how they oppress the Palestinian people, look at how they have so much power of U.S. policy. Would the U.S. put up with Iran oppressing the Israeli people the way the Israeli's oppress the Palestinians? HELL NO we wouldn't.
Sorry I agree with Ahmadinejad, the best way for peace in the middle east is to cleanse the Middle East of the terrorist state of Israel, this means dismantling the terrorist Israeli state, not killing the Jews - bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2funny, i'd say the same thing about the bush crowd. including stalinist.
- vampares, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@klawz
That would imply the better part of the world today is at war with Iran. Not implicating Iran in an alliance with nations that have nothing to do with each other, not invading a neighboring country and setting up a government at ones disposal, not supplying enemies with the means to destroy Iran, not imposing sanctions, which the US has done for years, limiting trading and economic capabilities. These are things that could be done.
Due to technology export restrictions the US has on goods going to Iran, they will have established an extensive blackmarket that is virtually transparent and unregulated. In these markets "hot" items, drugs, counterfeit moneys, weapons, etc. take a premium over other goods available in other legitimate markets.
To say that bombing them is the answer would be to say that sanctions are not/were not necessary and bombing them was the answer from day one. While I agree that Iran was in the wrong, the means of "punishing" them was inappropriate. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@raisputin
The tragedy of it is that Islam really has been taken over by the totalitarian fundamentalists - much more so than fundamentalist Christians have sway in the U.S. If we had a rational discussion of why Islam breeds terrorists, we could insist that they stop using Israel as an excuse and clean up their act. Instead we blindly support Israel, enabling Muslims' denial about the totalitarianism in Islam.
Just as Communism ceased to be a global threat when people could freely leave Communist countries, the "threat" of Islam will end when everyone, everywhere is free to be of any religion or irreligious if that is what they choose. The death penalty for apostacy is Islam's Berlin Wall. - chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What nonsense to say 99% of the diggs were non-American. We US Citizens are at last speaking out to oppose the lies and propaganda promulgated by our Government regarding the Middle East and regarding Israel in particular. The Middle East is a complex region whose politics cannot be reduced to mere black-and-white. Israel is not always the 'good guy' and the Arabs are not always the 'bad guys'. It is un-American not to question your government's edicts - in fact, if you don't, you might as well be a fascist.
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5quote
The way to fight such proliferation is to remove the causes behind the insecurities that prompts some countries to pursue such weapons.
/quote
And the only way to do this is what? Would you say to convert to Islam? Because that is my understanding, you give a chance to convert, and if they choose not to, they, the infidels are your enemy in a holy war - that shall not end until chaos is all around, and or everyone converts. Additionally, I'm glad I'm not alone in agreeing that some 10th century way of thinking nation(s) should not be allowed to play with the big guns, if you will. Trust me, I know eventually someone who doesn't respect the life of other humans will get them, and use them - we can only hope to delay it.
I think not. I think that certain countries are "mature" enough to know when to use WMD, and some are not. - palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2So, on one hand Iran says "Hey, we want to use our nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes", but on the other, they say "Israel must be wiped off of the face of the earth." If they don't have nukes now, they will... It's only a matter of time.
- GonzoLiga, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The primary problem with this article, and its assertions, is that Hersh is in the midst. He's hit and miss, and takes his cues and clues only from those willing to speak to him. Not necessarily those in the know.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Funny, I read an article last week that the IAEA finds plutonium in the Iranian trash...
As the middle east over populates, the friction is going to increase among their own governments, populations and the west.
Anyone bother to think that the American presence in Saudi Arabia created Bin Laden? And why were we in Saudi Arabia? You thank the dude that's going to hang in a couple weeks... - rapiddemon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I hear that they're being stashed in Iraq.
- fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Cause Iran Support's islamic extreamist, groups you dumbass.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1just because they might not have the ability now, doesn't mean they won't get it later if we let them continue their nuclear research. we really need to take out their nuclear facilities now; it will save a lot of grief than waiting later for it to happen.
- DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The same CIA didn't see the Soviet Union's implosion coming, either. I wouldn't put a lot of weight behind the CIA's determinations, given it's now infested with libs with an agenda.
- palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"I guarantee you guys come election time, in 2008, the bush administration will miraculously find WMD in Iran and revive the hunt for Osama. Geez they are so predictable. "
Actually, Iran says they want to groom the next Osama Bin Laden... And this is out of their mouth. People like you are so predictable too because you can't open your eyes as to what is going on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Don't forget, this is the same CIA that "falsely reported" on Iraq's WMDs... jesus.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is