Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True

Page 4 of 6 First ... 23456 Last
  1. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Guy View Post
    Luther until you post your own opinions based on what you have personally seen, I'm done with this. I refuse to answer your articles written by people with an agenda. I have given you a fair and honest assessment as I have personally seen it, and you quote idiots. I have personally been part of water projects over here. Don't blame us for an infrastructure that your buddy Saddam let fall to ruin. We have invested billions in this economy and infrastructure. So, until you post something original, I leave you to Poison, Vance, and Ryan. Love you like a brother, but grow a pair and read something other than hate America filth.
    AG
    Yes,the agenda is ending a needless occupation ASAP.

    By the way,you mean to tell me you have no agenda?

    You only say what you have personally seen and never rely on accounts from second or even third parties? Sure.

    Why do you call the people I quote idiots,because they disagree with you? The last guy I quoted is an independent journalist in Iraq.

    I also posted vids of "Winter Soldiers" who have seen what you have seen,been through what you have been through and completely disagree with what you say,guess they are idiots too,huh?

    By the way,what does criticizing a horrific policy that lead to a horrific war have to do with hating America?


  2. Holy crap, you didn't quote something. Ok, I will answer you point by point again.

    you said:
    By the way,you mean to tell me you have no agenda?
    My only agenda is getting the heck out of this country and seeing my family again. I will not, however, slacken my responsibilities in the process. I have been deployed 4 times, and I for one am done with the wars. Your arguements don't sit well with me because
    1. Afghanistan is not a senseless war, they attacked us first... case closed
    2. Iraq could be argued either way. Nevertheless, the people themselves are extremely happy Saddam is gone, and THEY voted by 90% to keep us here at least until 2011.
    So I want to go home, yes, but I also want to finish the job and finish it right. Let the politicians argue over the why's


    You only say what you have personally seen and never rely on accounts from second or even third parties? Sure.

    Once again, you are assuming. I have, as an intelligence officer, done more research than you could possibly imagine on what we call "Atmospherics" which is gauging the populace and other Soldiers on what their accounts and opinions are on our "occupation." What does the research show???? there is a VERY SMALL minority that wants us gone now. However, as stated above, and being proven in the local election, the overwhelming majority want us here and say that we are 100 times better than the Saddam regime, which they despised.

    Why do you call the people I quote idiots,because they disagree with you? The last guy I quoted is an independent journalist in Iraq.

    Point taken. You are correct, I shouldn't call them idiots. That is just an opinion. I have been around, escorted, and interviewed with numerous reporters while here, and let me tell you one thing... they are after the story that will sell headlines. They will twist and turn quotes to fit their own agendas. Don't just take my word for it, ask any Soldier who has been interviewed by these guys and have had to read their misquotes in the paper the next day. Does it happen all the time??? No. Does it happen???? All the time. There are some great reporters out there, from both sides of the isles, but in my opinion over 75% start out Anti war, Anti Bush, Anti American, or just Anti Anti! You for one should take your own advise. I HAVE first hand experience, and you dismiss me as well.

    I also posted vids of "Winter Soldiers" who have seen what you have seen,been through what you have been through and completely disagree with what you say,guess they are idiots too,huh?

    No, but they offer another viewpoint, and I might add that THEIR view is not what 90% of others in the military think. Remember that!!! you are putting all your $$ on the 10%. Good luck at that bro.

    By the way,what does criticizing a horrific policy that lead to a horrific war have to do with hating America?

    Hating America comes when you openly and forcefully oppose all that it does. America is the strongest nation in the world, and every time someone needs help, they call us. The war is horrific, yes, but that is war. What America needs is support for the troops and misinformation to stop. You are quoting the MINORITY of people's opinions, and make to sound like it is the MAJORITY. That is a huge issue to me and many other Americans. And, frankly, it is offensive


    So, line by line bro. I hate war too, in fact more so given that I am going to be away from my family for yet another Christmas. That said, I will do my job and do it the best I can. I don't set policy, I enforce it, as do those who serve with me side by side. We don't ask you to toe the line on this. Good debate is needed and is what keeps a capitalistic society afloat. However, do the world and this forum a favor and don't try to pass off a few people's opinions, who are few and far between, as being how it is everywhere. That is misleading. I respect your opinions, you are entitled to them, just don't degrade me and my fellow brothers in arms by spreading misinformation, and yes that is exactly what it is.

    AG
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    That's like looking at a shaved headed Muslim, who's sweating and wearing a bulky ski jacket in 90 degree heat, and walking towards a packed bus stop muttering allhuakhbar with his finger on the button, and saying 'he's not stupid enough to do that, no human would!'. We all know how that works out.

    Your logic and morals don't apply over there. YOU wouldn't build a nuke and tickle your biggest nuclear neighbor with it, and risk your populations total annihilation, but Ahmedinejad might, Khameini might. Iran isn't in the most stable region of the world. What if Iran nuked a neighbor? Could it trigger a WW? Could we be dragged in?
    So what alternative use would Iran have for a nuke?
    Pakistan has nukes and Al Quaeda seems to be vacationing there. We should probably worry about them instead. Iran would be a costly war and right now our military isn't doing well in Afghanistan/Iraq. We could not afford to start a full-fledged war with Iran. Russia would almost certainly have some interest in stopping US expansion in the region as well.

    Iran won't fire a nuke at Israel even if it had the capability.

    Iran won't suicide itself for one nuke launch. Khameini/Almedinejad wont sacrifice an entire nation to blast israel once and disappear. You can't equate that to a suicide bomber who is only risking his own life. I think Iran's interest in nukes is more defensive than offensive if any at all.

    Iran is not a threat to the US. N. Korea already has a nuke and a delivery system but yet there is no talk about them in the news nearly as much as Iran. I honestly think there are worse threats out there to the US than Iran gaining nuclear energy.
  4. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanp81 View Post
    Luther you crack me up you wikipedia a bunch of quotes by famous people and then add your two cents into it that, freaking outstanding, if you can do a better job with providing better diplomacy with the "current scenario" go over to the sandbox and make sure you bring Sean Penn and his camera with you, also bring some knock off van gough's and picasso's so you can reintroduce there cultural "roots" with some new artwork.
    Senator Fulbright:

    "To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
  5. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Guy View Post
    Holy crap, you didn't quote something. Ok, I will answer you point by point again.

    you said:
    By the way,you mean to tell me you have no agenda?
    My only agenda is getting the heck out of this country and seeing my family again. I will not, however, slacken my responsibilities in the process. I have been deployed 4 times, and I for one am done with the wars. Your arguements don't sit well with me because
    1. Afghanistan is not a senseless war, they attacked us first... case closed
    2. Iraq could be argued either way. Nevertheless, the people themselves are extremely happy Saddam is gone, and THEY voted by 90% to keep us here at least until 2011.
    So I want to go home, yes, but I also want to finish the job and finish it right. Let the politicians argue over the why's
    Afghanistan is senseless because:

    A certain group of men,none of which are from Afghanistan,attacked the US. Why not invade Saudi Arabia where most of them were from? How much sense would it make for the Sandinistas to attack the US because the Contras trained at the SOA in Fort Benning?



    Once again, you are assuming. I have, as an intelligence officer, done more research than you could possibly imagine on what we call "Atmospherics" which is gauging the populace and other Soldiers on what their accounts and opinions are on our "occupation." What does the research show???? there is a VERY SMALL minority that wants us gone now. However, as stated above, and being proven in the local election, the overwhelming majority want us here and say that we are 100 times better than the Saddam regime, which they despised.
    You are not there to help the people but to obtain control of strategic territory and resources,helping the people of Iraq is a smokescreen used as a talking points by pro-war pundits.
    See : The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives
    by Zbigniew Brzezinski
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

    By the way:

    "Iraqis have wanted the U.S. out of their country almost from day one. Various surveys show that a solid majority of citizens want coalition troops to leave within a year.
    http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

    In 2004, 86% of Iraqis wanted U.S. troops out - 41% immediately and 46% after a new government
    was established.
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...4/06iiacss.pdf


    At the start of 2006, 94% of all Iraqis supported their government setting a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from immediate departure to a timed departure over two years.

    A few months later, even a poll by the U.S. Department of State showed nearly 70% of citizens wanted U.S. occupation to end.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601721_pf.html

    Polls in 2007 and 2008 conducted by a variety of organizations demonstrate that a majority of Iraqis want foreign troops to leave."
    http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55




    Point taken. You are correct, I shouldn't call them idiots. That is just an opinion. I have been around, escorted, and interviewed with numerous reporters while here, and let me tell you one thing... they are after the story that will sell headlines. They will twist and turn quotes to fit their own agendas. Don't just take my word for it, ask any Soldier who has been interviewed by these guys and have had to read their misquotes in the paper the next day. Does it happen all the time??? No. Does it happen???? All the time. There are some great reporters out there, from both sides of the isles, but in my opinion over 75% start out Anti war, Anti Bush, Anti American, or just Anti Anti! You for one should take your own advise. I HAVE first hand experience, and you dismiss me as well.
    I do not dismiss you and your experience,I dismiss your labelling of others who have firsthand experience but a view diametrically opposed to your own as "idiots" and "leftists".


    No, but they offer another viewpoint, and I might add that THEIR view is not what 90% of others in the military think. Remember that!!! you are putting all your $$ on the 10%. Good luck at that bro.


    "Iraq war veterans against the war have been shunted aside for a few reasons.The officer corps is now composed disproportionately of self-identified political conservatives and Republican partisans.
    http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...ype=2&t****8654

    The Iraq war has opened up an unprecedented partisan divide, and Republican support has been remarkably resilient. While there have been signs of mounting discontent—including surprisingly large active-military contributions to Ron Paul, the only Republican presidential candidate to oppose the war—the current crop of veterans is less fertile soil for the IVAW's plow than for its Vietnam-era counterpart. Put simply, veterans have been quiet partly because many are strong partisans who, at least until quite recently, have been committed to the administration, the war, or both."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...8G8&refer=home

    By the way,more recently we have:

    Military Families Question Iraq War as Support for Bush Slips

    Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Kent Fletcher, an Iraq war veteran, says he enthusiastically voted for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, he is a registered Democrat who questions the need for the war, the way it has been managed and the treatment of returning veterans.

    ``Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat and the culmination of my career was that war and it wasn't necessary,'' says Fletcher, 32, a financial analyst in Bluffton, South Carolina, who served almost 10 years as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.

    "A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that Fletcher's skepticism about the war reflects a growing disenchantment within the broader military community, long a bastion of support for the Bush administration and Republicans. Among active-duty military, veterans and their families, only 36 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. This compares with an Annenberg survey taken in 2004, one year after the invasion, which showed that 64 percent of service members and their families supported the war.

    The views of veterans and their families are now closer in line with overall public sentiment. The poll shows that 32 percent of the general population supports the war.

    `Enormous Sacrifices'

    The change isn't ``surprising,'' says Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University whose son was killed in Iraq in May. ``Military families have been asked to make enormous sacrifices.''


    Hating America comes when you openly and forcefully oppose all that it does. America is the strongest nation in the world, and every time someone needs help, they call us. The war is horrific, yes, but that is war. What America needs is support for the troops and misinformation to stop. You are quoting the MINORITY of people's opinions, and make to sound like it is the MAJORITY. That is a huge issue to me and many other Americans. And, frankly, it is offensive
    Senator Fulbright died eleven years ago, but many observations continue to be topical today, e.g. this quote about "superpatriots" from his book The Arrogance of Power:

    " There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical, the other self-righteous; one is sensible, the other romantic; one is good-humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious and the other arrogant in the use of great power."

    From the same book:

    To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation.
    •   
       


  6. Alright bro there are a few things I am going to point out. First, I never said that all the troops support the war. In fact troops hate war more than you and your war hating buddies. The difference is we understand the NEED for it and do our best to fulfill that need. Of course there are Soldiers and Officers out there who hate Bush and what he did and are forever going to blame him from everything with the war to the extinction of the dinosaurs. That is life. There are anti war groups of vets all over the place. But what you are failing to recognize is that the overwhelming majority of us, those who have bled and seen friends die, completely disagree with these jokers. You are still trying to push off their opinions as the majority opinion. And who cares what political party they come from. It comes down to wanting to finish the job and do it right.
    Another thing, those polls you quote are not in context. You only briefly mention one time that the Iraqis want us gone AFTER the government is secure. Hello??? Why didn't you complete that point. Of course the Iraqis want us out of their country, and WE want out as well. The point is they want us out AFTER their own bubbas can do the job and not a second before. You slightly alude to this, but perhaps we can agree on this one point. They want us out, YES. We want out, YES. Both parties only want that to happen when Iraqi troops and government are ready, YES. The Iraqis themselves set the time table for 2011. I was hoping sooner, but they ASKED us to stay until then. So be it.
    Bro by you saying removing Saddam was a smoke screen to get resources is full blown fabrication. Did you know that the Iraqi government was sitting on over 4 billion $$$ in excess fuel their last fiscal year??? Did you know that instead of letting us have, use at a discount price, or even use period never happened??? That they, in most places, still rely on the US to give their military fuel, like where I am. Dude we haven't gotten a dime from these guys. We still ship all our fuel in from out of country for this war. There are also no contracts out there to get any. I am not saying that the old administration wasn't banking on getting cheaper fuel, I can't read their minds. But we don't. We use mostly American made gas over here. And as far as other resources go... what other resources... dates??? they taste good, but I don't think this war is for dates.
    Afghanistan..., dude how soon people forget. Had the terrorist been IN Saudi and the Saudi government openly funded them and gave them people and land in support of their effort to kill the west, we would have went over their and kicked their Rolls Royce driving butts. However, it was the Taliban that did that. The Taliban helped these losers, gave them money, land, food, shelter, and then refused to let the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY come and try these losers for these attacks. THEY ATTACKED US and that is pretty easy.
    Dude there is a difference in being critical of policy and the ways things are done in war and politics and doing what you do. You find articles that support your view and slant them to your means. Dude, I am in the military and don't need someone NOT in the military telling me how the military thinks and works. We don't ask you to toe the line. I already said that debate is good and what keeps this nation strong. It is using one sided facts and misrepresentations that gets guys like me in a huff. I am all for you questioning why... I do it all the time. But I work with these Iraqis and have been all over this country. You have not... you read articles of guys who, not all, have huge agendas. The truth is out here, and the sooner we get home the happier THIS Army Guy will be
    AG

  7. Quote Originally Posted by nopeace View Post
    Pakistan has nukes and Al Quaeda seems to be vacationing there. We should probably worry about them instead.
    Read the news recently? We, and the Paki's, are.

    Iran would be a costly war and right now our military isn't doing well in Afghanistan/Iraq.
    We're doing very well in Iraq, thanks.

    We could not afford to start a full-fledged war with Iran.
    Oh yes, yes we could start a full-fledged war with Iran. Full-fledged is the best kind, the one we excell at like no other nation excelled before. A half-assed peacekeeping/insurgency quelling mission is another matter. So unlimp thy wrist, and stop jumping on the 'we're losing' bandwagon that is perpetually wrong (we've been losing in Iraq since before we kicked Saddam 6 ways from Sunday, until today).

    Russia would almost certainly have some interest in stopping US expansion in the region as well.
    Russia would have an interest in protecting the $4b they've sunk into Iranian nuke reactors, first and foremost. **** Russia.

    Iran won't fire a nuke at Israel even if it had the capability.
    Promise?

    Iran won't suicide itself for one nuke launch.
    ORLY? You know Ahmedinejad, on a first name basis with Mahmud? Hang with Khameini?

    Until then, conjecture. Fact is, he says otherwise, and does otherwise. If you are honing a knife, and say you're gonna stab me, with a crazed look in your eye...you better watch yourself.

    Anyway, he's not developing nuke weapons, remember? Peaceful purposes only! Ya, mahn.

    Khameini/Almedinejad wont sacrifice an entire nation to blast israel once and disappear. You can't equate that to a suicide bomber who is only risking his own life.
    You know nothing about suicide bombers. I do. I combated them in Israel and Lebanon for several good years. Suicide bombers are perfectly willing to take out Muslims with whoever else is along for the ride. They believe that it's just fine to kill unwitting Muslim kids on the bus with the Israeli kids; they're serving Allah's will, even though they had no idea they were going to die.

    So depending on how whacked Ahmedinejad/Khameini is, or their successor (we know how unstable the ME is), it's is absolutely not my kind of odds to assume that they'll behave in a manner familiar to and consistent with our Western morals, values, and logic.

    I think Iran's interest in nukes is more defensive than offensive if any at all.
    Seriously, think. You say they aren't stupid enough to attack with the nuke, but want that nuke as a deterrent.

    The fact is, one nuke means nothing to us, in the grand scheme. However, no nation can allow a city to be wiped away by a nuke, and that's the threat: that Ahmedinejad will take a million with him even as he himself goes out. That's intolerable to us, and that's his leverage.

    Leverage? What's this? Essentially the plan is this: convince the world he's bat **** crazy, BEFORE he has a nuke. Without a nuke, bat**** crazy is just crazy, no one will touch him. Once he has the nuke, hold back on the crazy talk so as not to provoke the itchy trigger fingers, pose some semblance of respectability, and start making demands. Trust me, he's got lots, and none are good for the West. Build up his arsenal/armaments, increase his authority in ME affairs, become top dog in the Middle EAst, all under an (militant) Islamic flag. Allhuakhbar!

    How hard would it be for him to cause the start of a major regional war which involved us eventually? Is it worth letting him have that capability, in the name of 'fairness'?

    Iran is not a threat to the US. N. Korea already has a nuke and a delivery system but yet there is no talk about them in the news nearly as much as Iran. I honestly think there are worse threats out there to the US than Iran gaining nuclear energy.
    You just said above Iran's interest in nukes is defensive, now you say it's energy. Which is it?

    NK? They're 3 days away from starvation, and can't get a nuke to work to save their lives. SK, Japan, and China are in their business 24/7.

    I'd say Iran is a bigger threat.

  8. Poison you are my new hero!!! Word bro!

  9. I honestly don't think we're doing to well in Iraq. Until recently at least.

    If we can't even commit troops to Afghanistan what makes you think we could commit another 100-200k to invade/Iran?

    Do you know Almidinejad personally to know that he would launch a nuke at Isreal?

    Why does Iran have to be the US's problem? shouldn't Israel handle it themselves since they feel more threatened? Why wait for the US to do it for them? I think Israel won't go in because their F-16/15's would probably get shot down by Iran's s-300pmu systems.

    It seems to me that most of your post was speculation and not factual (mine wasn't factual either) you don't know if Almadinjad is going to make demands from the world. If he got a nuke and started making demands then he would be stamped out.

    If Iran was allowed to have peaceful energy in which the Uranium was enriched in Russia I see no problem at all since they won't have the materials necessary for a warhead. I honestly don't think Iran would be worth spilling American blood over.
  10. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Guy View Post
    But what you are failing to recognize is that the overwhelming majority of us, those who have bled and seen friends die, completely disagree with these jokers.
    That is your opinion and I respect it,I also respect the opinion and observations of these guys:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv7zg7Q06hc&feature=re lated"]YouTube - 冬の兵士 - Winter Soldier (1):イラク帰還兵 戦争の実態を語る[/ame]




    Another thing, those polls you quote are not in context. You only briefly mention one time that the Iraqis want us gone AFTER the government is secure. Hello??? Why didn't you complete that point. Of course the Iraqis want us out of their country, and WE want out as well. The point is they want us out AFTER their own bubbas can do the job and not a second before. You slightly alude to this, but perhaps we can agree on this one point. They want us out, YES. We want out, YES. Both parties only want that to happen when Iraqi troops and government are ready, YES. The Iraqis themselves set the time table for 2011. I was hoping sooner, but they ASKED us to stay until then. So be it.
    First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout."

    Second, PIPA released the results of its latest round of polling http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=250&lb=hmpg1, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year.

    By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country."

    Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."

    Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

    – Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Sep06_rpt.pdf

    Bro by you saying removing Saddam was a smoke screen to get resources is full blown fabrication. Did you know that the Iraqi government was sitting on over 4 billion $$$ in excess fuel their last fiscal year??? Did you know that instead of letting us have, use at a discount price, or even use period never happened??? That they, in most places, still rely on the US to give their military fuel, like where I am. Dude we haven't gotten a dime from these guys. We still ship all our fuel in from out of country for this war. There are also no contracts out there to get any. I am not saying that the old administration wasn't banking on getting cheaper fuel, I can't read their minds. But we don't. We use mostly American made gas over here. And as far as other resources go... what other resources... dates??? they taste good, but I don't think this war is for dates.

    You must be kidding! LOL! So the US invaded for humanitarian purposes?

    THE JERK: WHY SADDAM HAD TO GO

    by Greg Palast
    Excerpt from 'Armed Madhouse'

    The 323-page multi-volume "Options for Iraqi Oil" begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning:

    The report is submitted on the understanding that [the State Department] will maintain the contents confidential.

    For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq's oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of our team.

    Our big break came when James Baker's factotum, Amy Jaffe, first reached on her cellBaker in Amsterdam, then at Baker's operation in Houston, convinced herself that I had the right to know about the plan. I saw no reason to correct her impression. To get the plan's title I used a truly dumb trick, asking if her copy's headings matched mine. She read it to me and listed its true authors from the industry.

    The plan carries the State Department logo on the cover, Washington DC. But it was crafted in Houston, under the tutelage of the oil industry -- including, we discovered, Donald Hertzmark, an advisor to the Indonesia state oil company, and Garfield Miller of Aegis Energy, advisors to Solomon Smith Barney, all hosted by the James A. Baker III Institute.

    Read the rest here: http://www.gregpalast.com/the-best-t...d-for-big-oil/

    or

    Listen to RFK and Greg Palast on Iraq, a 20-minute conversation about blood and oil for 'Ring of Fire' from Air America.
    http://www.gregpalast.com/wp-content...re_7-29-06.mp3



    Dude there is a difference in being critical of policy and the ways things are done in war and politics and doing what you do.
    No there isn't.


    Dude, I am in the military and don't need someone NOT in the military telling me how the military thinks and works.
    Much of my source material comes from others also in the military now or in the past.

    Example:

    WAR IS A RACKET

    by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
    Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired

    http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ar...risaracket.htm

  11. stupid double post

  12. Quote Originally Posted by nopeace View Post
    I honestly don't think we're doing to well in Iraq. Until recently at least.
    The initial invasion went extremely well; despite the hand-wringing of people like you, the US military obliterated the iraqi military and had control of the country in days. What happened next is not a shortcoming of the military or our country, but 1 man, Rumsfeld. If we had invaded with 250k troops instead of 40k, the insurgency would never have taken off. But they followed Runsfeld, and here we are. Despite that hiccup, we are still winning, things are going a good direction.

    Again, try to control your ADD and understand it'll take some years for the iraqis to get the hang of this whole democracy thing.

    If we can't even commit troops to Afghanistan what makes you think we could commit another 100-200k to invade/Iran?
    I love it when non-military personell comment on military affairs. Who ever said we planned on or needed to invade Iran? No one has ever said anything like that. We can take his **** out right now, with very limited boots on the ground, in and out quick.


    Do you know Almidinejad personally to know that he would launch a nuke at Isreal?
    Your naivety is astounding. I never made any claims as to what he will or won't do; you did, and so it's on you to support that with evidence. Fact is, you can't, the evidence supports his use of a nuke more than not: his obfuscation of the UN and Iaea, his lies, his 'now you see it now you don't', his double talk, his open threats against israel, his blazen attacks on the US in Iraq, his attacks on israel through support of terror in israel, his support of hizbullah and their attack on israel in 2006, his open jew-hatred...he is developing a nuke, make no mistake, and says he'll use it.

    If I point aloaded gun at your head, and say I'm gonna kill you, would argueing that I'm not going to make any sense?

    Why does Iran have to be the US's problem? shouldn't Israel handle it themselves since they feel more threatened? Why wait for the US to do it for them? I think Israel won't go in because their F-16/15's would probably get shot down by Iran's s-300pmu systems.
    Iran has been the US problem since Iran supported the Iraqi insurgency and caused the deaths and permanent injury of thousands of US troops.

    What happens if Iran gets a nuke, and provokes a regional war? It's not too hard to imagine.

    It seems to me that most of your post was speculation and not factual (mine wasn't factual either) you don't know if Almadinjad is going to make demands from the world. If he got a nuke and started making demands then he would be stamped out.
    All any of us can do is speculate. However, there are certain fact out there that you can use to form a basis for your speculation. How do I know he is going to make demands? Because he already IS making demands, and this is without a nuke to back it up. He wants israel gone, he wants the US out of the middle east, he wants oil traded in euro, he wants, he wants, he wants. He wants to be the biggest player in the middle east. Listen, persians have a lot of pride as one of the oldest cultures on the planet. Their history goes way back, and they see themselves as part of something greater, a continuation of a story. Americans in their individualism and n00bishness, can't even begin to fathom anything like this, or what it means. Persians have a lot of pride, it goes deep, and some of them desire a return to the glory days. That's fine, great, but mix that with militant islamist ideals, and it gets ugly.

    There are certainly a huge number of iranians who would love to see militant islam gone and an open western society allowed to flourish.

    If Iran was allowed to have peaceful energy in which the Uranium was enriched in Russia I see no problem at all since they won't have the materials necessary for a warhead. I honestly don't think Iran would be worth spilling American blood over.
    It seems you've settled on iran's nuke project being peaceful. Last post you said it was defensive only, which implies weaponized nukes. I really think you should ponder the issue, and solidify your opinion. Be sure to take into account his lies, deception, threats, and so on.

    If it was purely peaceful, i'd say 'fine'. But if it's purely peaceful, why the game of three card monty? Why the deception? Why is he instigating and attacking his neighbors (iraq and israel), in tandem with an ambiguous nuke program and verbal threats, if he has peace on the brain?

    I was a paratrooper in the idf. I spent many months in the west bank and lebanon, fighting hamas, islamic jihad, george habash, hizbullah, etc. I've seen it first hand. If I see a guy with a winter jacket and shaved head (traditional for suicide bombers) acting weird, sweating, and he yells allahhuakhbar, I'm going to aim my weapon at his head, and iif there are people around, shoot. I don't need to wait to see the explosion to act.

    If your somewhat troublesome teenager comes to you with a smirk on his face and says 'guess what dad, I just bought some crack', are you going to say 'haha, pfft, that's funny', and walk away, or are you going to sit him down and take the issue to its very end until you're sure of what exactly is the case?

    When people talk, you should listen. If they threaten, you should pay attention. If they display the intent and means, it's on. Question is, does iran have the means? Not yet, but much points to them aquiring the means, and soon.

  13. Hasn't the US been sponsoring terror groups inside Iran anways?

  14. Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    The initial invasion went extremely well; despite the hand-wringing of people like you, the US military obliterated the iraqi military and had control of the country in days. What happened next is not a shortcoming of the military or our country, but 1 man, Rumsfeld. If we had invaded with 250k troops instead of 40k, the insurgency would never have taken off. But they followed Runsfeld, and here we are. Despite that hiccup, we are still winning, things are going a good direction.

    Again, try to control your ADD and understand it'll take some years for the iraqis to get the hang of this whole democracy thing.



    I love it when non-military personell comment on military affairs. Who ever said we planned on or needed to invade Iran? No one has ever said anything like that. We can take his **** out right now, with very limited boots on the ground, in and out quick.




    Your naivety is astounding. I never made any claims as to what he will or won't do; you did, and so it's on you to support that with evidence. Fact is, you can't, the evidence supports his use of a nuke more than not: his obfuscation of the UN and Iaea, his lies, his 'now you see it now you don't', his double talk, his open threats against israel, his blazen attacks on the US in Iraq, his attacks on israel through support of terror in israel, his support of hizbullah and their attack on israel in 2006, his open jew-hatred...he is developing a nuke, make no mistake, and says he'll use it.

    If I point aloaded gun at your head, and say I'm gonna kill you, would argueing that I'm not going to make any sense?



    Iran has been the US problem since Iran supported the Iraqi insurgency and caused the deaths and permanent injury of thousands of US troops.

    What happens if Iran gets a nuke, and provokes a regional war? It's not too hard to imagine.



    All any of us can do is speculate. However, there are certain fact out there that you can use to form a basis for your speculation. How do I know he is going to make demands? Because he already IS making demands, and this is without a nuke to back it up. He wants israel gone, he wants the US out of the middle east, he wants oil traded in euro, he wants, he wants, he wants. He wants to be the biggest player in the middle east. Listen, persians have a lot of pride as one of the oldest cultures on the planet. Their history goes way back, and they see themselves as part of something greater, a continuation of a story. Americans in their individualism and n00bishness, can't even begin to fathom anything like this, or what it means. Persians have a lot of pride, it goes deep, and some of them desire a return to the glory days. That's fine, great, but mix that with militant islamist ideals, and it gets ugly.

    There are certainly a huge number of iranians who would love to see militant islam gone and an open western society allowed to flourish.



    It seems you've settled on iran's nuke project being peaceful. Last post you said it was defensive only, which implies weaponized nukes. I really think you should ponder the issue, and solidify your opinion. Be sure to take into account his lies, deception, threats, and so on.

    If it was purely peaceful, i'd say 'fine'. But if it's purely peaceful, why the game of three card monty? Why the deception? Why is he instigating and attacking his neighbors (iraq and israel), in tandem with an ambiguous nuke program and verbal threats, if he has peace on the brain?

    I was a paratrooper in the idf. I spent many months in the west bank and lebanon, fighting hamas, islamic jihad, george habash, hizbullah, etc. I've seen it first hand. If I see a guy with a winter jacket and shaved head (traditional for suicide bombers) acting weird, sweating, and he yells allahhuakhbar, I'm going to aim my weapon at his head, and iif there are people around, shoot. I don't need to wait to see the explosion to act.

    If your somewhat troublesome teenager comes to you with a smirk on his face and says 'guess what dad, I just bought some crack', are you going to say 'haha, pfft, that's funny', and walk away, or are you going to sit him down and take the issue to its very end until you're sure of what exactly is the case?

    When people talk, you should listen. If they threaten, you should pay attention. If they display the intent and means, it's on. Question is, does iran have the means? Not yet, but much points to them aquiring the means, and soon.
    Ok, first and foremost. Let me clear up about what I think about Iran's intentions. I think they do want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, they offered the US a "grand bargain" back in 02. You are right about them being full of pride, I think this is why they are really adamant about gaining nuclear energy more as an act of defiance.

    Firstly, (I think) Iran wants energy.
    Secondly, if they do want nuclear weapons it would serve primarily as a defensive measure because using them offensively would mean certain death for everyone in iran.

    As for striking Israel it would make no sense because they would likely lose within a matter of minutes. They wouldn't sacrifice their entire population to hit one Israeli city.

    On a side not about the Iraq invasion, of course the invasion went well Iraq had no military to fight with. It was the occupation that cost the Americans, when I see the death toll and the results, I do not think the US has gained anything from the war, only more problems. Its not democracy they don't understand I think it's more about the differences in religions in the region that are causing all of the problems. I do agree however that if more troops were committed to staying and fighting in Iraq that the insurgency would have never taken hold like it did.

    I also do not think we will actually invade Iran that would be tremendously costly in lives. But if they did have to do a gulf war style invasion it would be very costly.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by nopeace View Post
    Hasn't the US been sponsoring terror groups inside Iran anways?
    Do you see iran being torn apart by ied's suicide bombers, with 50-100k killed? Nope. That's because the US is not sponsoring terror in iran. They do, however, sponsor opposition groups and student protests. Not quite the same thing.

  16. U.S., Israel: Juniper Cobra Update
    November 3, 2009 | 2003 GMT
    U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS Higgins near Haifa, Israel on Oct. 29
    Atef Safadi-Pool/Getty Images
    U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS Higgins near Haifa, Israel, on Oct. 29
    Summary

    Operation Juniper Cobra, the joint ballistic missile defense (BMD) exercise between Israel and the United States, is scheduled to conclude on Nov 5. This joint military exercise is more than a routine because of its scale and scope. Over the past two weeks, Operation Juniper Cobra has laid the groundwork to integrate U.S. and Israeli BMD systems to deal with the threat posed by Iran. However, as ongoing negotiations continue to falter between Tehran and the West, Operation Juniper Cobra has sent a strong message to the Iranians of the U.S. security commitment to Israel and the region.
    Analysis

    Extensive U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) exercises known as Juniper Cobra are under way in Israel, and are scheduled to last through Nov. 5. Though this is a regular exercise, the 2009 iteration is of unprecedented scale and scope, attempting to integrate the latest U.S. and Israeli BMD systems. The exercise is clearly intended to test joint capabilities and ensure mutually supportive interoperability in defending Israel from ballistic attack. But the scale and timing of the exercises remain important.

    For the past three months, tensions between Iran and the West have been ratcheting up over Tehran's nuclear program. While Iran has been busy stretching out the ongoing nuclear negotiations, the Israelis -- seeing themselves as the most likely target of any potential Iranian nuclear weapon -- have been pushing the United States to take an ever-firmer hand in constraining the Iranian nuclear progress. STRATFOR sees Juniper Cobra as an element of that pressure, not simply to highlight for the Iranians that the Israelis have military options (and cover from the United States), but that the Americans are deeply committed to the region and are refining the military capability to provide that cover.

    While most media reports have emphasized the routine nature of exercises, recently, the Israelis have been direct about the possibility of this being less an exercise and more of a deployment. On Oct. 23, Israeli Air Defense Corps commander Brig. Gen. Doron Gavish said: "In time of need, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will protect our country. However, if decided, our defenses will be enhanced by the United States' capabilities." Furthermore, no IDF representative has shied away from mentioning that scenarios involving Iran form a substantial portion of the exercise.

    The United States' tight-lipped denials of anything out of the ordinary have recently shifted; Com. Carl Meuser of the guided missile destroyer USS Higgins (DDG-76) said Nov. 2: "We're here for some very specific reasons, some specific threats that the Israelis are interested in, that we're interested in. And that's as far as I want to go down that road."

    However, even going back to the opening days of Juniper Cobra, it has been clear that the Americans have more on their mind than simply working out technical kinks. U.S. Army Col. Anthony English, a deputy commander of Juniper Cobra, made it clear Oct. 27 that the exercise was not simply about Israel: "We are trying to integrate that (Aegis) capability here with the X-band radar and the THAAD weapon system, along with the Patriot system, into some sort of European missile defense system. We are going to learn a lot of lessons here that directly apply to what they want to do in EUCOM (U.S. European Command)." He added, "This is the most complete air- and missile-defense exercise that we have done."

    Put simply, no country has dealt more actively with a broader range of ballistic threats than Israel. Two things are happening. First, the United States has set up the groundwork and has run tests to ensure that it can quickly and effectively reinforce Israeli BMD in a crisis. Second, the United States generally has learned a great deal about deploying its own BMD technologies in a comprehensive way. The result of Juniper Cobra is that even if all U.S. BMD forces withdraw quickly after the conclusion of the exercises, they can return faster and be active sooner. Additionally, U.S. forces have gained valuable experience that will help ensure that they deploy more effectively in the future, even if the destination is not Israel.

    This exercise is by no means routine, and has quickly risen to much higher levels of significance; on Nov. 2, the commander of the U.S. Army European Command, Adm. James G. Stavridis, arrived in Israel for a three-day visit. Stavridis would not visit only to ensure that the software bugs had been worked out. Judging from Iran's behavior in the nuclear negotiations thus far, Tehran may not realize the gravity of these exercises just yet, but official leaks coming from Israel and the United States on the deeper purpose of these exercises are designed to drive that message home.
    .....

  17. The recently-revealed Iranian nuclear facility in the Shi'ite holy city of Qom has "no possible civilian use," Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin said Tuesday, directly contradicting statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in September.
    This satellite image shows a...

    This satellite image shows a suspected nuclear facility under construction inside a mountain northeast of Qom, Iran.
    Photo: AP
    SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World

    Speaking at a briefing of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Yadlin said that the Qom facility was designed for the enrichment of uranium, and at full capacity can hold 3,000 advanced centrifuges.

    Ahmadinejad had claimed that the facility was built solely for peaceful purposes.

    Yadlin said that the Israeli intelligence assessment is that Iran was interested in a "horizontal expansion" of its nuclear production capacity, so that when Teheran decides to advance to nuclear weapons capability, it will be able to do so in the shortest possible period of time.
    RELATED

    * Video: Clinton says settlements illegitimate, urges Iran to accept offer

    He reiterated comments he made during a similar briefing six months ago, during which he had said that "Iran is intentionally advancing its nuclear development in such a way so as not to cross any nuclear red lines by enriching low-grade uranium that is not sufficient for weapons development, but that can quickly be adapted to weapons-grade uranium in such a short period of time that the process can't be sabotaged."

    Yadlin emphasized that Iran was "competent in enrichment technology" and has not thus far been moved by the international response to its nuclear program.

    Yadlin noted that although the international deadline for talks with Iran was set for the end of 2009, sanctions against Iran had more chance of success than in the past because of the current economic and political conditions in the country.

    "Iran isn't North Korea," he said.

    On the other hand, said Yadlin, China and Russia had still not signed on to supporting any international sanctions against Teheran.

    Yadlin said that one important goal for Israel was to prevent the entry of any of the 3,000 centrifuges from being installed at the Qom site.

    Arab countries, according to Yadlin, are afraid of Iran's nuclear development, and are speeding up their own civilian nuclear projects.
    .....

  18. Do you remeber the action taken against protestors early this summer, no so understanding government as you suggestion. Human rights is an after thought in that country.

  19. An afterthought in what country?

  20. Last night israel seized a ship carrying hundreds of tons of iranian arms to hamas, in what was apparently a joint US/Israeli operation. This shipment was 10 times the size of the 2002 ship that got caught, the Karin A.

    One more instance of iran meddling in the regions affairs; they supplied the insurgency in iraq with disasterous effect, and they do the same with Hizbullah and hamas.

    Peaceful, my ass.
  21. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    By the way,Army Guy,the reason I mentioned Saudi Arabia is because of the funding by Saudi Sheikhs of the over 20,000 wahhabi madrassas found in Afganistan where people like Mullah Omar were "educated" in wahhabism,which is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia.

    A World bank study in 2001 estimated that Saudi funded madrassas were teaching as many as 2 million of Pakistan's students an Islamic based curriculum. It is estimated that more than 80,000 of these young madrassa students became Taliban recruits. So I ask again,why not invade Saudi Arabia,where the extremists funding originates?

    This special explains it even better:

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/generation.islam/
  22. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Last night israel seized a ship carrying hundreds of tons of iranian arms to hamas, in what was apparently a joint US/Israeli operation. This shipment was 10 times the size of the 2002 ship that got caught, the Karin A.

    One more instance of iran meddling in the regions affairs; they supplied the insurgency in iraq with disasterous effect, and they do the same with Hizbullah and hamas.

    Peaceful, my ass.
    Sounds extremely fishy,you mean in the midst of all the scrutiny of the nuclear program,just so happens that Israel captures a ship with weapons from,of all places,Iran! LOL! Pretty timely huh? Kind of like the Weapons of Mass Destraction in Iraq.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/wo..._r=1&ref=world

    "The Israeli Navy captured an Antiguan ship today near the island of Cyprus, which officials are touting as the largest capture of arms ever by the Israeli military.

    Israel officials claim that the ship was loaded down with weapons sent by the Iranian government to Hezbollah to use against Israeli civilians, though the only evidence they presented to back up this claim was that some of the shipping containers found on board had “Iranian Shipping Lines Group” written in English on them. http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/11/04/i...arms-shipment/

    The Israelis also claim to have proof the ship left Iran and was heading to Syria, though they did not release this proof publicly.

    Israeli diplomats have been ordered to use the capture of the ship to rally international support against the Iranian government. Israeli embassies across the world have been ordered to issue press releases accusing Iran of turning the Mediterranean Sea into a terrorist base.

    The Iranian government denied the allegations and insisted the ship was heading to Iran, not from Iran, and that it was carrying Syrian goods on board.
    http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...pted-by-Israel



    The UN has insisted it has no evidence of ongoing arms smuggling to Hezbollah.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126061.html

  23. You find this surprising? If there was some massive subterfuge going on, why didn't the US just plant nuke material in iraq after the invasion? Or simply lie? But somehow you think someone set up a ship with tons of russian and iranian made arms, and planted it in the mediterranean?

    If you kept up on things, you'd know that this isn't the first time ships have been caught smuggling. The scrutiny over the nuclear issue is exactly how they got caught: US satellites tracked it leaving iran, all the way up into the mediterranean.

    Iran is heavily involved in arming hizbullah; hizbullah is pretty much owned by iran, funded and provided for; russia is the other major supplier to hizbullah. This has been the case since well before I served in the idf, and I saw it first hand while serving in lebanon. Iran has been arming hamas in gaza with longer range missiles, smuggling in experts, and the last gaza op was run under iranian tutelage. Iran utilizes all means to smuggle these goods. including native bedoin in the sinai and even pirates, by sea. A score of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen died in the 2006 lebanon war. Why? They were directing hizbullah, who attacked israel under iranian auspices.

    If you were paying attention, there was a little publicized story in the news a couple months ago, a ship that got hijacked by somali pirates en route between russia and iran. The russian military went WAY out of its way to 'resolve' this issue, and it was very clear that there weren't just dates on board. The crew got sick, and several died under strange circumstances.

    You may not believe iran can do any wrong, but I've seen it with my own eyes.


    As for the UN, they didn't see the slaughter or hear the screams, even as they sat 500 yards away on their hotel rooftop in rwanda and other places in africa. What the **** makes you think they 'see' hizbullah accepting arms shipments? How about this? I myself have seen UN personall shield hizbullah terrorists, in full weaponized military garb, heading to and from operations, inside lebanon. This is against their own rules and those by which they operate in lebanon. I've been heading out on operations in lebanon with my squad, in the middle of the night, and had UN troops do everything in their power to alert hizbullah as to where were were, indluding firing flares, using spotlights, following us, etc. I've seen UN checkpoints allow armed hizbullah through, a violation of their rules. I've seen them turn many a blind eye to hizbullah terror activities, and sometimes even aid them.

    Hizbullah was able to pony up 30,000 missiles, hardened underground bunkers, their own separate communications system before the 2006 war, all under direction from iran, all under the eye of the UN, literally. There were hizbullah bunkers and missile silos within hundreds of feet of UN bases. And you're trying to tell me that iran doesn't supply hizbullah, the ship is bs? Because you read it somewhere?

    I spent months fighting hizbullah, I spent months inside lebanon. We killed 6 hizbullah terrorists trying to sneak across the border into israel, in 3 separate instances within 2 months. Israel used sophisticated equipment to scan the border, but the wadi's were out of sight, so hizbullah would creep, unseen, through the wadis to get into israel, where they would kill israeli civilians. The idf has informants in hizbullah, as well as other intelligence; they would tell us when a terror squad was supposedly trying to come through. We would set an ambush in the wadi they were expected to pass through. We would sit, camo'd up, in a bush, for 3-7 days, eat and drink what we brought, **** in bags, piss in bottles, and carry it all out so as not to leave a trace. Myy company had 2-3 ambushes running at any given time, for months straight. Hizbullah wouild attack our base, shell us, so the whole thing was underground. They would poison the local water, so we had to truck it in; I showered 7 times in 3 months, once. They attack our convoys, ied the roads. One of my jobs was to walk in front of the convoy, every time it went in or out, 3 times a week. I would walk on the left side, my buddy on the right, and we were to look ahead for signs of ied's or ambushes. Essentially my job was to trigger an ied before the convoy got there, sacrifice myself. I did this for monthe. There was an intersection where they would ied it every time we passed; one time there were 29 high grade ied's within a miles or so.

    We killed 2 guys headed toward the road I swept every convoy. In their backpacks they had ied material, drug paraphanelia (they get high before attacking, like the mumbai terrorists), and a nice handicam. Later that day a patrol found additional gear which completed their ied setup, and a camera tripod. They were going to set up ied's on 'my' road, blow me up, and videotape it to broadcast on HizzieTV.

    Wtf do you know about hizbullah and iranian arms?

  24. How did Israel do it? Israel must have some intelligence that led to the operation, but the Jerusalem Post emphasizes due diligence:

    After several days of the Israeli military monitoring the ship, IDF Navy Seals boarded it in the middle of the night. Suspicions were raised after the Seals uncovered certificates within containers that documented Iran as the point of origin for some containers, with Syria as the intended destination.

    Upon receiving permission from relevant authorities, including the political establishment, the seals commandeered the ship and brought it to Israel. When the vessel was already en route to Israeli shores, Israel apprised the government of Antigua and the company that owns the ship of the situation, said the officials.

    After leaving the Bandar-Abbas port in Iran, the cargo was shipped through the Suez Canal, unloaded at the Mediterranean port of Damietta in Egypt and then loaded onto the ship that was captured by the navy. The intended destination was the port of Latakia in Syria, with the contents of the shipment to be sent to Hizbullah, they said.

    The ship's crew was unaware of the weapons on board, as the armaments were disguised as humanitarian aid and hidden behind sacks of polyethylene.

    According to the Israeli military, containers aboard the ship were owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines Group and each container contained sacks filled with 25 kilos of silicon made by the Natural Petrol Company in Iran. Upon opening the containers used for smuggling the weapons, only the sacks were visible, but behind the sacks lay weapons. The Jerusalem Post article on the seizure includes the video below showing the concealment of the weapons.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1257417379353
  25. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    You find this surprising? If there was some massive subterfuge going on, why didn't the US just plant nuke material in iraq after the invasion? Or simply lie? But somehow you think someone set up a ship with tons of russian and iranian made arms, and planted it in the mediterranean?
    You are putting words into my mouth,I said it smells fishy,especially given the timing and the US is engaging a full court press on Iran right now so what are you talking about?

    By the way:

    Also See: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons:* A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has reported. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906Z.shtml

    If you kept up on things, you'd know that this isn't the first time ships have been caught smuggling. The scrutiny over the nuclear issue is exactly how they got caught: US satellites tracked it leaving iran, all the way up into the mediterranean.

    Iran is heavily involved in arming hizbullah; hizbullah is pretty much owned by iran, funded and provided for; russia is the other major supplier to hizbullah. This has been the case since well before I served in the idf, and I saw it first hand while serving in lebanon. Iran has been arming hamas in gaza with longer range missiles, smuggling in experts, and the last gaza op was run under iranian tutelage. Iran utilizes all means to smuggle these goods. including native bedoin in the sinai and even pirates, by sea. A score of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen died in the 2006 lebanon war. Why? They were directing hizbullah, who attacked israel under iranian auspices.
    http://www.truthout.org/011409D

    To Iran, Hamas is no Hezbollah

    While there certainly is an underlying rivalry between Israel and Iran that has come to fuel many other otherwise unrelated conflicts in the region, not every war Israel fights is related to Iran. In this specific case, the parallels to the 2006 Lebanon war are inaccurate. Iran's ties to Hamas are incomparable to the much deeper relationship Iran enjoys with Hezbollah. Iran's close relationship with Hezbollah is rooted in the Iranian view that Shiite minorities in Arab countries are Iran's most likely allies and agents of pro-Iranian sentiment; consequently, backing Hezbollah is viewed to be in Iran's core national interest. In contrast, Iran's relationship with Hamas is a marriage of convenience at best.

    In spite of its ardent pro-Palestinian rhetoric, Iran's relationship with Palestinian groups -- including Hamas -- has often been strained. Tensions with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization were mostly rooted in Arafat's insistence on defining the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a secular Arab nationalist cause -- leaving non-Arab Iran with no opening to play a leadership role in the Muslim world's cause clbre. Differences with Hamas, however, derived from a mix of politics and ideology. Hamas' intellectual roots go back to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni fundamentalist movement. Furthermore, during the Iraq-Iran war, both the PLO and Hamas expressed support for Saddam Hussein.

    Throughout the 1980s, Iran was better at offering rhetoric than practical support to the Palestinian cause, due to Iran's immediate security concerns. This changed in the mid-1990s, when Iran feared that the Oslo peace process was partially aimed at securing Iran's prolonged isolation and political exclusion. But even after the outbreak of the second Intifada, the Iranians took the lead in making grandiose speeches about Iranian backing of the Palestinian cause, but seldom tried to live up to the standards set in its statements. As I describe in Treacherous Alliance - The Secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press), European diplomats in contact with representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas visiting Iran after fighting between Israelis and Palestinians had broken out reported back that both groups were utterly disappointed with their Iranian hosts whom they accused of making empty promises -- Tehran neither provided them with money nor weapons. A joke in the streets of Tehran reflected Iran's pretense: "Why aren't there any stones left to stone the adulteress? Per the order of the Supreme Leader, all the stones have been shipped to Palestine as Iran's contribution to the Intifada."

    Again, history seems to be repeating itself. After daily demonstrations in Tehran in favor of the Palestinians, including a six-day sit-in at Tehran airport by hard-line students demanding government support for sending volunteers to fight in Gaza, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei contained the protesters by thanking them - while pointing out that Iran was not in a position to go beyond rhetorical support since "our hands are tied in this arena." Other Iranian officials have reinforced that message. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that Hamas does not need military support to defend itself. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's brother indicated to the demonstrators at Tehran airport that Iran's support for the Palestinians would be limited to "spiritual support for the victimized people of Gaza."


    Why Israel's Offensive in Gaza Should Worry Obama

    Tehran's complex, if not conflicted, response to the assault on Gaza can best be understood in the context of its broader strategic aims. By rejecting any material Iranian support or involvement in the Gaza battles, Iran's strategic imperatives trumped its ideological concerns and pretenses once more. Khamenei's statement regarding Iran's hands being tied resembles Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to support the Lebanese Shiites by directly entering into war with Israel in 1984 through his edict that the road to Jerusalem goes through Karbala. That is, until Iran has defeated Saddam Hussein, it will not be sucked into a conflict with Israel, regardless of Tehran's ideological opposition to the Jewish state.

    Contrary to the neo-conservative narrative that the fighting benefits Iran, Tehran seems to view the Israeli assault on Gaza as highly problematic for several reasons. First, there are suspicions in Tehran that Israel's offensive is a trap with the aim of drawing both Hezbollah and Iran into the fighting. With only weeks left till President Elect Obama takes office, any direct conflagration between Iran and Israel would significantly reduce Obama's ability to deliver on his campaign promise of opening talks with Tehran without preconditions.

    Second, increased tensions and polarization in the Middle East undermines Obama's ability to pursue a new policy towards this region, including a shift in America's 30-year old policy of isolating Iran. In fact, polarization along the imagined Gaza fault lines - and a misleading equation of Hamas with Tehran - traps the incoming Obama administration in an involuntary continuation of the Bush policies that contributed to the increased instability in the Middle East in the first place. From the vantage point of Israeli hardliners, this may be a welcomed outcome since it will make compromise with Tehran more difficult and pressure on Israel less likely. Hence, Tehran seems poised not to help reduce Obama's maneuverability.

    Third, the conflict is creating unwelcome tensions between Iran and key Arab states. Arab dictatorships fearing that the rise of Iran would weaken America's position in the Middle East and that the survival of Hamas would embolden Islamic nationalist opposition groups throughout the region - both of which would undermine these Arab governments' undemocratic rule - initially sided with Israel by remaining silent or explicitly putting the blame on Hamas. But as the casualties rose and the images of slaughter spread on Arab satellite TVs, the anger of the Arab streets reached the Arab palaces and courts. A similar pattern was seen in 2006 when many Arab governments initially welcomed Israel's air assault on Hezbollah in Lebano\n. There, the change of heart had less to do with the images of Lebanese casualties and more to do with Hezbollah's surprising resilience and fighting power.

    Though it is true that increased tensions enables Iran to score propaganda victories on the Arab streets, since many Arab states have either remained silent or secretly collaborated with Israel to defeat Hamas, this does carry a great risk for Tehran. If the fighting in Gaza goes on for too long, the spillover effects will be felt in increased Arab-Iranian tensions at a time when Tehran is more interested in soothing ties with the Arabs in order to minimize Arab disruption to any potential US-Iran opening.

    The neo-conservative narrative and its imagined fault lines may temporarily add fuel to the US-Israeli alliance, but it will neither bring stability nor order to the region. Rather, it will push the Middle East further into endless conflict and restrict America's next president to a mindset and a policy framework that risks making the promise of change a dream unfulfilled."

    ---------

    Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US," a silver medal recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award. Andreas Persbo is a senior researcher at the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. 2 Superfoods You Don't Know About
    By yeahright in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-06-2006, 12:06 AM
  2. All You Need To Know About Fina!
    By Blindfaith in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 07:30 AM
  3. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-12-2004, 05:48 PM
  4. Everything You Need To Know About CLEN!
    By Blindfaith in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2003, 12:08 PM
Log in
Log in