RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Dropping in - The War in Iran

Posted by: ukula
- [211381511] Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 12:50

I figured I'd start this thread early since we all know it's coming especially after last night's address by Bush. The Iran "links" to this and that have started.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
168Perm Dude
      ID: 221145412
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 13:55
A lot of blowback on that report. Apparently the President had the report for 6 months, and continued to hammer at Iran about "World War III" despite no evidence that they had nukes.

Part of the pressure to release the NIE came from the military, who were charged with finding suitable military targets in Iran but were forced to conclude that they had no targets, since Iran didn't appear to be doing any of the things the President was warning the world they were actively doing.
169biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 14:33
Jesus, Walk. Hush that up, pronto. How the heck do you expect Republicans to get elected without the obligatory crescendo of saber-rattling and military action as the elections approach?!?

I know, there's always gays and immigrants, but that only generates low-level fear and hatred, not the white-hot fear and hatred needed for folks to vote against their best interests.
170walk
      ID: 2530286
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 19:51
LOL, bili. I thought this was a big story, but not much of a response here. Oh well. Bush and co say it supports their views and actions...Not surprised at the interpretation, but I hope the masses don't buy into the propaganda. It's a gov't intel report!
171CanadianHack
      ID: 21937272
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 20:11
George W Bush doesn't let anything like facts influence his agenda. Iran is a threat because his gut tells him it is. In that way the situation is exactly the same as Iraq.

I strongly hope that the next president allows his policy to be grounded in reality. Setting policy despite opposition by the facts of the case is Bush's biggest flaw.
172Perm Dude
      ID: 221145412
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 22:05
Glenn Greenwald on how this administration demonizes people who give them bad news
173Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 22:37
“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.
“That’s not believable,” Biden added. “I refuse to believe that. If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.”

Joe Biden

174sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 10:36
...he has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.

If we just take that part right there, I would find myself in complete agreement with Joe. (Something, which I dont believe has happened before.)
175nerve proxy
      ID: 61137511
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 12:37

He has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.

I have to disagree with the first part of this statement. His staff had an agenda, to go to war in Iraq at all costs to create a huge cash windfall for the Military Industrial Complex...how were they incompetent?

Your interpreting the quagmire in Iraq as a "bad thing" for their benefactors, my interpretation is it was the plan all along.

Someone is getting rich on the 2 Trillion dollar tax bill.





176sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 12:40
valid point.
177walk
      ID: 7952415
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 13:16
Right, nerve proxy has the cynical and likely accurate assessment. The neocons want instability in the mideast.
178walk
      ID: 7952415
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 13:26
Dowd on Bush

Friedman: U.S. & Iran
179boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 13:56
I like the part in the dowd article about bush and his daddy issue. i have allways beleived that large parts of Bush mentality has been driven by issues related to his father.
180sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 14:03
Agreed boikin. Only missing from the "analogy", is the injuries sustained by the passengars in that station wagon; namely, the American public.
181nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 16:14


The neocons want instability in the mideast.

As Kasporav pointed out when he was on Maher, Putin wants instability there also.

That's why he stood side by side with Iran's Ajhamediwhat's his name?

An unstable Middle East drives up the price of Russian oil and oil is all Putin has right now.

182biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 16:53
183walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 13:41
An Alternate View on the NIE Report

So, are these guys accurate? They claim the NIE report is misleading cos it too narrowly defines the actions associated with a "weapons programs." It's written by IranWatch.org, a supposed non-profit group affiliated with the Univ of Wisconsin.

Iran Watch
184Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 11:43


After watching this Administration lie, lie and lie some more to the American public, to the UN, to the Coalition of the Willing [more like Gullible], the CIA grew a backbone and prevented these clowns from lying us into a war with Iran. For this I tip my hat. Thank you.
185sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 11:47
They didnt have much choice really Zen. We cant afford another war. We have neither the $$ for it, nor the remaining military capacity for it.

Hell, it'll probably take 10+ years to rebuild our military to what it was prior to 9/11. The CIA, HAS to know our true capability and they had little choice but to ensure we dont find ourselves embroiled in yet another unending conflict.
186walk
      ID: 7952415
      Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 13:25
NYT Op-Ed: Defusing Iran
187walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:12
Confrontation b/w ships on Jan. 6
188Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 09:50
International Herald-Tribune: With national the security threat from the US diminished, Iranian leadership refocuses on internal political divides, potentially weakening Ahmadinejad.
189Perm Dude
      ID: 2609178
      Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 16:24
The War on Facts continues
190sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 16:42
CENTCOMM Commander resigns to "retire"

WASHINGTON - Adm. William Fallon is stepping down as head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military matters in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday.

Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon’s and that Gates believed it was “the right thing to do.”

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush’s Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

'Distraction' cited
“Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region,” Fallon said.

“And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there,” Fallon added.

Gates described as “ridiculous” any notion that Fallon’s departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said “there is a misperception” that Fallon disagrees with the administration’s approach to Iran.

“I don’t think there were differences at all,” Gates added.

Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon’s place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.



Noooooooooooo. As the lone voice of dissent, this couldnt POSSIBLY have anything to do with what will happen next....could it?

191bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 17:07
sarge, from a follow up article:

Most military leaders against military strike on Iran
Gates has said publicly and privately that under current conditions he's opposed to war with Iran. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is also against it. In fact, almost every senior military officer we've talked to is against launching military strikes against Iran, because as one senior official told us, "then what do you do?"

While the U.S. military does have the usual contingency plans for robust airstrikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets, it's the "aftermath, stupid." It’s the potential military response from Iran in the region and repercussions in global oil markets that are incalculable.


There is hope when the experience of the military is considered. One just would hope tho, that the current administration pays some attention.
192sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Wed, Mar 12, 2008, 08:59
somewhat reassuring, except this is the same admin that went against military policy and entered Iraq with no exit strategy in place. The same admin, that did away with what we called the "Powell Doctrine" of not entering into an armed conflict, without first establishing utterly overwhelming force. (Remember Rummys comments? :You dont go to war with the Army you want, but with the Army you have." If defending, that is a true statement. When aggressing however, if you dont have the Army you want, then you dont attack.) This admin, has shown a propensity, for attacking first, then denying the stupidity of it later.
193Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Mar 12, 2008, 13:07
Remember Rummys comments? :You dont go to war with the Army you want, but with the Army you have.

Why do you have to open up old wounds? I think Rummy might have been the only thing you and I ever agreed on.

The military will still have to follow the Commander In Chief whether they like it or not. That being said, I refuse to support a war with Iran if we attacked as things stand now. I do support limited incursions to stem the flow of smuggled arms into Iraq that kills our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. I do not support an Iraqi or Afghani style campaign into Iran.

I still do not support an invasion of Iran or even a prolonged bombing campaign and I think Fallon should be commended for at least resigning when a conflict arose as opposed to attempted undermining.
194Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:20
Matt Yglesias
The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.

The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.
195sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 07:48
RIP Sgt German

One of our finest
196Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 09:51
If somebody can read that story without getting choked up, then you know they aren't human.
197sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 16:43
Box....you and I are in agreement on somethings.
198walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 11:55
Iran Photoshopped a Missle Test

Too much!
199Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 12:53
hmmm, so what do the Iranian government and the Bush led US Government have in common?

oh. right. out and out lies in a build up to potential war.
200Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 13:05
Dude, that isn't even good Photoshopping.
201Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 19:26
A Phony Crisis — and a Real One

Iran, says Burns, has not yet mastered the technology of converting uranium gas into fuel for use in power plants, let alone the stuff of bombs. And even if Iran is one day able to enrich to weapons grade, she would still have to build and test a nuclear device, then weaponize it to fit atop a missile and deploy a missile force. All in all, says Burns, Iran’s progress with uranium enrichment has been “modest.”

There is thus no imminent crisis to justify war on Iran.

Yet, what is Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic House doing?

Some 220 members, a majority, have endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362. This virtual war resolution “demands” that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.

The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.

Last week, Mossad’s chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel’s armed forces.

Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don’t vote for you.
202Perm Dude
      ID: 24629177
      Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 21:16
Text of the resolution, which was introduced but has not been voted on

It doesn't seem as drastic as the author is making it, by my reading. But there it is--read it yourselves.
203sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 22:58
Let me get this straight..

3 months ago, Bush and Co were looking for all the world, like they were planning an Iranian conflict; and conservatives were cheering them for facing down the Iranian nuclear threat.

Now, a Dem resolution which imposes what amounts to embargoes is put forth; and the conservatives are crying "you're trying to start a needless war".


Is that essentially correct?

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iranto verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.


(emphasis added)

Would someone please point out to me, where that is an act of war? (Frankly, I see it as more pandering and fear mongering, distortions of the truth, and other similar measure which the Rep party has made its hallmark over the past 20 + years.)
204Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 23:39
It's disappointing to see Pat Buchanan join in the frivolity of political dishonesty that has engulfed this nation.

what is Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic House doing?

Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House?

This lists 220 endorsees. I may be off by a couple, but I counted 110(that's half folks) of them with R behind their name.
Nancy Pelosi was not among them.

Poor Pat couldn't help himself, making a futile stab to ingratiate himself with the conservatives who have abandoned him, branding him a Hitler sympathizer, anti-Semite and isolationist.

205Razor
      ID: 256431422
      Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 00:29
Boxman, that article is awful, especially for those who supported our cooked up reasons for going to war with Iraq.
206Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:24
U.S. Confirms It Shot Down Iranian Drone Flying Over Iraq
207Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Jun 03, 2009, 11:34
Sullivan: Anyone notice that something is happening in Iran?
209Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 11:07
Iran busted by Obama over secret nuclear lab
210Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 11:14
The benefits of talking with our "enemies."
211Boldwin
      ID: 1794329
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 14:10
More food for Perm Dude's triumphalism...
“The latest Fox News/Opinion Dymanic poll is chock-full of bad news for the president. But on foreign policy, the results are nothing short of stunning. On who they trust more to decide the next steps in Afghanistan, 66 percent say military commanders, while only 20 percent say the president. Even Democrats have more faith in the military commanders (by a 45 to 37 percent margin). On Iran, 69 percent say Obama has not been tough enough, including 55 percent of Democrats. Sixty-one percent favor a U.S. military action, if needed, to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Fifty-one percent think Obama apologizes for American too much. . . . In short, Obama has already achieved what it took Jimmy Carter an entire term to attain: the conviction of a large majority of the American people that he is not protecting our interests or performing adequately as commander in chief.”

Posted at 7:25 am by Glenn Reynolds
212biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 14:22
Those are the worst phrased questions I've read in a poll in a long time.

Of course, that's probably because I wouldn't bother reading a Fox News poll if I were actually trying to determine what people think.

I actually feel less knowledgeable than before I read them.
213Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 11:06
BUTT for The Left Behind.
214Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 15:40
Not sure where to put this, but I just came across this film about the writer William Stafford, called Every War Has Two Losers.

While it was about Vietnam, the fact that the War on Terror has turned into much more of an ideological war than even a pre-emptive one makes the parallels are lot closer.
215Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 22:56
Failing to learn from history's mistakes.
216Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 20:27
Let the pre-spin begin!
217Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 14:44
This has turned into the de facto War on Terror thread, so I'll put this here:

Rare double agent thrwarts plan to take down airline.

The thing is, it looks like it really would have worked. So something that would have been a real coup for al queda at the very time they need it was thwarted by a ballsy Saudia Arabian intelligence operative, who brought the bomb and plans home and the the CIA.
218Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sun, Nov 24, 2013, 15:11
As a result of the deal, Israel is pissed that they are no longer driving the debate on Iran.

A very good deal for the US, and rest of the world. Netanyahu is a blowhard, and is angry that his narrative (Iran is an out-of-control nuclear power, and only Netanyahu can save Israel) has been torn to bits by reality. Expect more sputtering in the near future.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: Dropping in - The War in Iran

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days22
Last 30 days1010
Since Mar 1, 200754251595