No, but maybe some diplomatic visits to Iran would've convinced the Iranian people to elect a more moderate President than Ab... Abin... whatever.
The U.S. has gone into the Middle East in a half-assed fashion, and now it's turning into a giant clusterfuck. And it's only gonna get worse now that Iran appears to be on Russia's good side.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
The leadership of Iran has been run by anti-American clerics since the days of Jimmy Carter.
The clerics, or "Council of Guardians," get to approve each and every presidential candidate. No one can run without their seal of approval. Do you really think anyone who might shake their grip on the country is going to get approved?
As such, a few more "diplomatic visits" wasn't going to break that stranglehold on the country, regardless of what Bush did or didn't do with Iraq.
Furthermore Iran has been on Russia's 'good side' for approximately the same amount of time. That wasn't something that started with Bush.
Finally, you must not understand what "diplomatic visits" are, if you think they are targeted at the voting public of any country. Diplomats work with the leaders of the government of that country. They don't work with the population to overthrow that leadership. In fact, that sort of "diplomacy" is usually considered "fostering insurrection" and could get our diplomats killed.
By "divestment" I assume you are suggesting that the U.S. should have pursued a policy of not allowing investment in Iranian businesses.
The United States has engaged in sanctions against Iran since 1979. To date, they have been proven largely ineffective. Furthermore, given that we have had sanctions in place for nearly thirty years, I don't see how failing to invade Iraq would have affected "divestment" either way.
I don't think the "Hawks" are, at this point, contemplating a protracted ground war against Iran. I think they are building up to the idea of quick raids and air strikes as necessary. More akin to Gulf War I than the current Iraq war.
And why exactly wouldn't Iran react and respond militarily to quick raids and air strikes?
And as with Iraq, would't you need ground forces to ensure that all the WMD's were accounted for and destroyed? After all, an air strike isn't going to guarantee you got 'em all.
...why exactly wouldn't Iran react and respond militarily to quick raids and air strikes?
I'm sure they would. However, do you really think that they'd last long against our battery of cruise missles, jets and bombers?
You make a better point about the need for ground troops to uncover WMDs. If, however, the US knows where they are being built and plans on striking there early on, that's less of an issue.
Furthermore, the problem in Iraq isn't that we needed the troops for the actual war. The problem in Iraq was not planning properly for the resulting occupation.
Whatever developing news is used to justify beating the Iran war drum, it's still just the same old Neocon "transforming the Middle East" agenda from the PNAC.
Quote:
Concern is also growing in the CIA and the Pentagon that the White House exaggerated intelligence used to justify an Israeli air raid on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria earlier this month, which some neo-conservatives hope is a precursor to war with Iran.
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East desk officer, said the neo-conservatives realised their influence would wane rapidly when Mr Bush left office in just over 15 months. "Whatever crazy idea they have to try to transform the Middle East, they have to push now. The real hardline neo-conservatives are getting desperate that the door of history is about to close on them with an epitaph of total failure."
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East desk officer...
Reidel was a Clinton appointee. While this does not automatically disquaify him or his opinions, it does tend to show he may be somewhat biased against the Bush administration or its foreign policies.
Indeed, the flowery language Reidel employs in that article would seem to indicate a certain level of emotion against the "neo-cons."
I predict is only about time before Israel bomb the Iran nuclear facilities in Bushehr even so its heavy guard by anti-aircraft guns. On September 6th an Israeli air-strike took out a Syrlan facility of some sort. Despite speculation that Syria might have been actively pur-suit nuclear weapons, Syria has maintained that it was an “unneused military facility or an agricultural research facility.” Israel has remainned silent, yet smug, about the resulets of the mission, which tells me that it involved something more than “unused military facility.”
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
[quote=the G-man] Reidel was a Clinton appointee. While this does not automatically disquaify him or his opinions, it does tend to show he may be somewhat biased against the Bush administration or its foreign policies.
[quote] i guess Clinton appointed most of the people in the world then. because that's the only way someone could be against Bush's policies.
I guess this is why Bush Sr. used to call the neocons "The crazies".
You already have 2 wars that aern't going so well because we're overextended but the neocons figure they can squeeze one more war in before bush leaves office and their opportunity to remake the middle east from the barrel of a gun might soon pass.
I guess this is why Bush Sr. used to call the neocons "The crazies".
You already have 2 wars that aern't going so well because we're overextended but the neocons figure they can squeeze one more war in before bush leaves office and their opportunity to remake the middle east from the barrel of a gun might soon pass.
it kind of reminds me of when i play empire earth. i just attack whoever i want because i know the cheat codes for more money and to build instant troops. maybe the neocons should hit google and find some cheat codes that allow low taxes and massive spending.
There was a gentleman on the Colbert Report a few weeks ago that made a compelling case. Wrote a book on the subject, I believe....
You know, I always get a laugh out of the Colbert Report. Maybe that's why it's on the Comedy Channel?
it, like the daily show, is a satire. meaning that it presents real and truthful things and then pokes fun at them. but that doesn't really take away from either the validity of the jokes they're making (ie government wastes time) or from the serious guests that they book.
If only Iran had a rival that could distract Iran, forcing them to divert resources away from research. Such a country would be relatively the same in size and power and, ideally, right next to them. Oh, wait! There was such a country. The U.S. invaded and turned it into a clusterfuck.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: whomod
I guess this is why Bush Sr. used to call the neocons "The crazies".
You already have 2 wars that aern't going so well because we're overextended but the neocons figure they can squeeze one more war in before bush leaves office and their opportunity to remake the middle east from the barrel of a gun might soon pass.
it kind of reminds me of when i play empire earth. i just attack whoever i want because i know the cheat codes for more money and to build instant troops. maybe the neocons should hit google and find some cheat codes that allow low taxes and massive spending.
Yes.
To think, how many tens of thousands of people would still be alive today and how our international reputation and our treasury would be if these nutbags would simply have went to a pajama party at William Kristol's House and played Risk or Empire Earth to test out their idiotic theories of conquest with imaginary people who welcome conquerors with open arms, candy, flowers. etc. rather than with real people who fight back and real soldiers who bleed, are maimed, and really die.
And the fucking enthusiasm they show for another war just goes to show their utter detachment from reality and their disregard for the humanity of it all.
Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported last night.
The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will intensify US and European pressure for tighter sanctions and increase speculation of a potential military conflict.
I'm not sure, but do a left-leaning newspaper from another country and an UN official with the IAEA count as "US scaremongering"?
Yes, stopped in 2003. All this war-mongering towards Iran from Cheney, Bush, Kyl and Lieberman has been based on false and misleading information. The 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran isn't in the process of building a nuke weapon -- and hasn't been for four years. That's according to an article just out from Mark Mazzetti at the New York Times:
Quote:
A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program, and they come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”
“Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might — if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible — prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program,” the estimate states.
The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. The report led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the N.I.E.’s conclusions turned out to be wrong. The estimate does say that Iran’s ultimate goal is still to develop nuclear weapons.
The new report concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then.
Instead, the N.I.E. concludes it is more likely Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”
I just went through Bush’s NIE presser and it was pretty disturbing all around. The war drumbeat against Iran has been going on for sooo long now. You can understand why this report shatters the Bush/Cheney doctrine of immorally—attacking–a–country—that hasn’t attacked us. It’s a virtual replay of their Iraq intelligence scam. NBC’s David Gregory, called Bush on his “hyping” this scam just like he did with Iraq. Bush ineffectually told David Gregory that he just got the results of the NIE report last week.
Quote:
Q Mr. President, thank you. I’d like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in ‘03 had already come to light to this administration. So can’t you be accused of hyping this threat? And don’t you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
THE PRESIDENT: David, I don’t want to contradict an August reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it’s not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it’s real, then what does it mean? And it wasn’t until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
Not that it mattered to him, but Bush and Cheney and any number of warmongers go around spewing venom and trying to get the public behind another military strike while he’s waiting for the new intelligence to be verified? OK, I know there’s a neocon always needing a war fix—and probably has dark suspicions about the NIE report
Q Steve, when was the first time the President was given the inkling of something? I’m not clear on this. Was this months ago, when the first information started to become available to intelligence agencies?
MR. HADLEY: You ought to go back to the intelligence community. We will get you an answer on that. There’s two questions: one, when did they first get the information? — you ought to ask that to them — two, when was the President notified that there was new information available? We’ll try and get you a precise answer. As I say, it was, in my recollection, is in the last few months. Whether that is October — August, September, we’ll try and get you an answer to that.
I’m a big “Texas Hold em” fan and Josh Marshall caught a “tell” that indicates he knew before a week ago.
Quote:
If you go back to his October 17th press conference, the one where he spoke of ‘World War III’ he changes his wording. It’s no longer the need to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Now it’s the necessity of “preventing them from hav[ing] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
That’s the tell. That change is no accident. He wants claims that will survive the eventual revelation of this new intelligence — while also continuing to hype the imminence of the Iranian nuclear threat that his spy chiefs are telling him likely does not exist.
They’ve shifted their rules of engagement again to attacking a country for knowledge alone.
But one highly reliable intelligence community source I consulted immediately after Hadley spoke answered my question this way: “This is absolutely absurd. The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued. There was no last minute breakthrough that caused the issuance of the assessment.”
All I have to say in closing is I'm glad we waited and not attacked when The Kristols, Krauthammer's & the rest of the neocons were demanding that we do. If only we'd have waited before invading Iraq. But of course according to Rove on the talk show circuit last week, that was the Democrats fault too.
If indeed Iran stopped its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, is it a coincidence that this was the same year America made good on its threat of military force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
Also, I'm not sure why whomod (or anyone else) would accuse President Bush of being overly bellicose towards Iran. We've been rattling a saber for at least five years, but clearly we've spent more time trying diplomacy and hoping to foster reform from within. One would think accusing the US of a "let's-bomb-them-now approach" would entail actually bombing them, which of course the U.S. has not done.
In regards to the allegation that its some sort of "conspiracy" that this report wasn't released until now, I would submit that, to the extent that the NIE undercuts the credibility of the threat of military force, it reduces American leverage over Iran (and over our own allies) and thereby diminishes rather than enhances, the prospects for diplomatic success. That alone would be reason not to make it public. In fact, if the administration is subject to any criticism here, it's that releasing the NIE now seems to be signaling that it has decided to throw in the towel on dealing with the Iranian threat, leaving it for the next administration.
Finally, reading whomod's post, I see that what we really have here is more "Bush hate."
If one can have high confidence in the NIE findings, then those findings are good news for America. They mean that a regime that has repeatedly shown its hostility toward our country is less of a threat than we had reason to fear.
But we aren't seeing anyone celebrating the NIE as good news for America. The people (like whomod and his quoted sources) all seem to view it as a partisan document, a weapon to be used in their battle against the Bush administration.
To the Bush haters, it doesn't seem to matter how much of a threat Iran poses. Short-term political gain against the President is more important than the interests of America.
This intelligence report evaluates that Iran's nuclear weapons program was likely (though not absolutely) suspended in 2003. It was just released yesterday.
Whomod acts like the Bush administration are a bunch of villainous liars, who have been deliberately exaggerating the nuclear capability of Iran. But the report was released yesterday. And again, it is not absolute.
There was no advance warning that North Korea was going nuclear.
There was no advance warning that Libya was going nuclear --until they chose to give up their nukes program to U.N. weapons inspectors, in fear of invasion after seeing Saddam Hussein's fate in 2003.
There was no advance notice of the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of Eastern Europe in 1989, or the fall of the Soviet Union itself in 1991.
So assurances that Iran poses no danger of going nuclear cannot be trusted 100%.
I see a nuclear-armed Iran as a very serious threat to global security, with Iran's pre-eminent involvement in arming, training and supplying various terrorist groups in the Middle East region, and suicide bombers. A nation that looks favorably on suicide bombing is not one we can ever permit to acquire nuclear bombs. And a nation whose leadership has made clear rhetoric of needing nuclear weapons to advance the cause of fundamentalist Islam. And in particular Ahmadinijad's vow to "wipe Israel off the map". These are people fanatical enough to not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.
But Iran's nuclear program is not an imminent threat at this point. Even in the worst case scenario, U.S. intelligence estimates Iran to acquire nukes by 2009, and not have missiles to carry them until 2013. So I don't see this as something Bush has to deal with, and would prefer to see the next president handle military action against Iraq, if it comes to that. Although it could be like South Africa, where the WMD-eager apartheid government wanted nukes, but the new Mandela government handed the whole program over to weapons inspectors to dismantle.
North Korea is likewise moving toward negotiating its nukes away in exchange for security assurances, although that deal isn't done yet.
I know Bush would like to invade Iran, but I don't think he can rally the support to do it, and I don't want him to anyway. That's a decision best left to the next administration, which is only a year away.
I say the sooner we go to war with Iran, the better. Force is the only thing those bastards understand anyway.
Well, I'm all for fighting Iran, if it comes to that. But at this stage, I think there are other ways we can still prevent their acquiring nukes, short of war.
But if they're about to go nuclear, then I wouldn't object to air strikes to prevent that, short of all-out war.
From what I heard last night, sanctions are having their effect, making the Ahmadinijad regime increasingly isolated economically, and thus unpopular with the Iranian people, who are actually very pro-western, despite their fundamentalist leadership. It's possible a more pro-western government could replace Ahmadinijad in the next election, and opt to give up their weapons program to U.N. inspectors.
Here's a nice balanced discussion I saw on the News Hour last night
why is it that people assume that just because a country has nuclear weapons they'll use them? many countries have the technology. the blueprints are on the internet. but so far the only country ever to use one on an enemy is us in WWII. I don't really believe any country would use them again. The devestation and loss of life aside, it would turn every other country in the world against them out of fear. The real threat is all those leftover nukes in Russia after our little cold war caused so many to be built.Those get onto the black market where they could be attained by people who have no power or country to lose.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
why is it that people assume that just because a country has nuclear weapons they'll use them? many countries have the technology. the blueprints are on the internet. but so far the only country ever to use one on an enemy is us in WWII. I don't really believe any country would use them again. The devestation and loss of life aside, it would turn every other country in the world against them out of fear. The real threat is all those leftover nukes in Russia after our little cold war caused so many to be built.Those get onto the black market where they could be attained by people who have no power or country to lose.
Because Iran is the world's largest exporter of Islamic terror, funding, arming and training terror organizations and suicide bombers throughout the muslim world. A nation that embraces suicide bombing is not one that I want to have access to nuclear weapons.
North Korea has nukes, but mutually assured destruction still keeps them in check.
A nation whose leaders, and a wide body of their indoctrinated followers, who would eagerly die in the cause of Allah to assure their place in heaven, is not one I would trust to hesitate to use nuclear weapons, once they've acquired them. This is a nation that's vowed to "wipe Israel off the map." And made "death to America" a staple of their culture.
