Mothers Of Invasion, Part II: "Iran Is Coming! Iran Is

Politics International Politics
1

“The window of opportunity for disarming strikes against Iran will begin to close in 2005. It appears that the Uranium conversion facility in Esfahan will begin operation some time in 2005, as will the heavy water production plant at Arak. Barring further delays, the fuel for the reactor at Bushehr is also slated to be delivered in 2005, with reactor operations commencing some months after delivery. Significant Uranium enrichment could begin at Natanz in 2006, and plutonium production could begin at Arak by 2010.”

Maybe this time they’ll just spare us all the hype about why they’re really doing it and just get on with it:

“The annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel’s Knesset on 21 July 2004 noted that Iran’s nuclear program is the biggest threat facing Israel, “Maariv” and “Yediot Aharonot” reported on 22 July 2004. Some Likud and Labor Knesset members subsequently called for a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facility.”

globalsecurity.org/military/ … trikes.htm

2

Yes, Iran is a big danger to Israel and Europe. Funny thing is. EU leaders nag about US to possibly attack Iran.

But US itself is not threatened by Iran missiles!

Again, EU’s lacking millitary capacity could not solve the problem, even if Eu wanted. But, as I said, people are not even aware of this problem.

Having US take out Iran would be like to get a new shiny car for your birthday to Europe. But EU leaders reaction on getting the car keys would be: “Hey, you fu…ing US-imperialist son of a bitch … bla bla”.

I opposed the Irak war for different reasons, more of tactical nature. Not to stir chaos now and not to get into confrontation with most Muslims in the world. But that theme is past now.

Iran is an obvious threat. A dangerous terror regime willing to develop nuclear arms and use them in a nuclear doom scenario following: “if we have to die, others must too”.

3

Bob:

No. No. You are not getting Spook’s point. Iraq and Iran were threats first and foremost to Israel (wonder why people think that spook is anti-Jewish?) and no threat at all to the US or its allies in say the Persian Gulf. The US attempt to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons, therefore, is all about Israel and has nothing to do with Iran or US security. It is all about Israel. Get it?

4

[quote=“fred smith”]Bob:

No. No. You are not getting Spook’s point. Iraq and Iran were threats first and foremost to Israel (wonder why people think that spook is anti-Jewish?) and no threat at all to the US or its allies in say the Persian Gulf. The US attempt to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons, therefore, is all about Israel and has nothing to do with Iran or US security. It is all about Israel. Get it?[/quote]

Is it Fred, or maybe it is your own anti semitic nature and tendencies that makes you think spook’s posts are anti semitic, in fact almost all of your posts are anti someone, except of course your beloved homeland, who in your eyes can do no wrong. :unamused:

5

I think a comedy could be made out of it. You could have George in a military bunker with a few bunches of bananas. He slips on a banana peel and WHOOPS accidentally hits a button to launch missiles at Iran. While the laughtrack plays in the background you could have George shrug while Iran erupts in mushroom clouds. :stuck_out_tongue: That would get laughs from both sides and bring the country into harmony.

6

It’s worth noting that Fred never says that what I point out is wrong:

“The annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel’s Knesset on 21 July 2004 noted that Iran’s nuclear program is the biggest threat facing Israel, “Maariv” and “Yediot Aharonot” reported on 22 July 2004.”

Only that I’m evil for pointing it out.

Neoconservatives attempting to silence dissent with unsupported charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ is no different than Bolsheviks in the old Soviet police state attempting to silence dissenters with unsupported charges of ‘anti-Sovietism.’

It’s an ages-old tactic of demagogues everywhere.

Rather than being motivated by ‘hatred of Israel’ as charged, I’m motivated instead by ‘love of country.’

I love my country and can’t stand by in silence and see it dragged into the quarrels and conflicts of other countries without adequate justification or full consideration.

7

Right spook:

So how was Iraq not a threat to US security interests? Ask the Gulf Arabs, which we are treaty-obligated to defend. Ask the Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, Saudis, Qataris, UAEis (deliberate) and Omanis about Iraq. Israel will never come up in the conversation. Also, if you do not think that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the US then, well, there you are. But it is not 1796 and denial ain’t no river in Egypt (deliberate).

Let me ask you once again Spook and this time I hope you have the guts to answer me directly:

Do you think that Jews in the US administration (read Neocons) were reponsible for getting the US to invade Iraq solely to protect Israel? Yes or no. It is a very simple question and one that I doubt very highly that you will answer. So what is it? Yes or no.

8

Was Iraq REALLY a threat to the US? :unamused: I mean, look at the arms they had. And you somehow feel that a fragmented Iraq in chaos is not a threat? There is now debate that the situation now is more threatening than before.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3451239.stm
Moreover, George’s WMD witchhunt came to nothing. I like how Republicans try to hide their embarrassment: “But- but- but… It doesn’t matter if Bush lied! Saddamn was a threat anyway!” Evidently the US now needs no proof to invade a country. As long as we believe a country is a threat or it makes us uncomfortable, we have the right to blow it up. What country’s genius created the Teletubbies? They make me uncomfortable. In the meantime we have Fred and his crackpot reactionary sites to bolster Fred’s conviction that “dammit, we have God on our side!” :help: :help: :help:

9

If you mean the capability to nuke the oil fields or to reinvade Kuwait and maybe Saudi Arabia? Yes. At least, all the Gulf States believed that he was. Incidentally, factor in the costs of keeping one to two aircraft carrier groups in the region, the overflights to maintain the no flight zones and all that and you have additional costs. Throw in the 500,000 to 1 million who died because of UN and French corruption and then you have some ugly figures. Truth is we did not know but no one else did either and all other intelligence services believed that he had them. Why would Jacques Chirac say in January that we know he has wmds but want inspections to continue otherwise?

[quote] I mean, look at the arms they had. And you somehow feel that a fragmented Iraq in chaos is not a threat? There is now debate that the situation now is more threatening than before.
news.BBC.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3451239.stm [/quote]

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t but don’t pretend that no one except Bush was worried about Iraq and Saddam. The first thread on this contained a list of all the quotes by Democrat congressmen and presidents and European leaders who voiced the same. We now KNOW that Saddam did not have wmds but had ever intent to restart them after sanctions were lifted which is also what we feared. This was in the Duelfer report. Read it? You should. Finally, Bush said he was going to act BEFORE Saddam became an IMMINENT threat like North Korea that could not be taken out. He never said Iraq could threaten the US directly. He said it directly threatened our interests in the region and we were going to take him out before he could cause serious trouble. What is so difficult about this to understand? wmds was not the only reason for the invasion.

See above and stop getting hysterial or do any of the following:

  1. Prove Bush lied.
  2. Provide quotes from world leaders showing that they did not believe Saddam was a threat.
  3. Prove that any intelligence service did not believe that Saddam had wmds prior to the invasion.

[quote]
Evidently the US now needs no proof to invade a country. [/quote]

Not up to us to prove anything. Remember the ceasefire agreement required Saddam to prove that he was compliant with the conditions one of which regarded wmds. He did not. End of story. Ceasefire null and void.

What other countries live in fear of a US invasion? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Strange. Sounds like they might be awfully deserving of one. Besides them, anyone else? No. So get off this invasion of Iraq means American will invade one and all. Are you defending Saddam and Iraq? And Iraq was not a sovereign country in the full sense. It was one similar to Germany prior to the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Get that through your head.

Strange. Fear of one’s own? I would imagine that you would do very well in the Teletubbie world.

Well, if you think that researchers at famous American universities like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Columbia or renowned newspapers like the Washington Post, NY Times (which tend to be biased to the left) are wrong then well what can we do to convince you? And you have gone awfully silent on the other thread regarding the Sandinistas. Why? Beaten again?

10

:uk: ragdoll.co.uk/pressrel_ragdoll.htm

11

:laughing: One of the crackpot sites was the anti-Sandinista site you posted. Try and find any respectable site that says the Contras were “like our forefathers” as Herr Reagan said.
Again, I’m divided over Iraq. I’m glad Saddam is gone, but I’m not convinced we pulled it off well and might not make things worse. Not only could we fracture the country and breed more terrorists, we also did serious damage to our credibility with Bush’s fake evidence and serious damage to our economy by flying into deficit spending again. I’m glad Saddam’s out. Was it worth the cost? That’s debatable. It was a blundering effort.
More importantly, however, is the way you dismiss Teletubbies as a threat to the West. Iraq is a threat, but these multicolored demons are not? In some not-so-surprising ways, their social organization resembles that of an Al-Qaeda splinter cell:

[quote]http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~palindrome/comedy/tubby.htm[/quote] Why have Teletubbies refused to integrate? I think the ‘gene pool’ theory is kind of contrived. Their motivations are the key. The research indicates that:

[quote]Teletubbies are highly social creatures that seem to perform no function or action except recreation. Common Teletubby social activities include playing with balls or scooters, executing highly choreographed dance routines, or trampling innocent rabbits.[/quote] The last point is key to realizing this group’s nefarious aims. Since rabbits represent Easter, what we see is nothing less than a long campaign to undermine and topple the Christian West in a reversal of the Christianity vs. Muslim Crusade paradigm. Choreographed dance routines? I remember seeing some of these ‘dance routines’ on clips of Al Qaeda training videos. :astonished:
Fred, when are you going to finally open your eyes?
According to Michael Tatt,

What can you read from this?

12

I posted the work of a renowned professor at Stanford University. You have not disproved anything he said except to keep repeating that when I was being brainwashed by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua where I spent FOUR whole months, when I was being brainwashed by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua where I spent FOUR whole months…

Then, why not go back to the Bush is Time’s Man of the Year and prove anything? Have not seen you there for a while. Finally, thrown in the towel have we? Be a man and admit that you have lost and are completely out of your depth.

13

[quote=“fred smith”]Bob:

No. No. You are not getting Spook’s point. Iraq and Iran were threats first and foremost to Israel (wonder why people think that spook is anti-Jewish?) and no threat at all to the US or its allies in say the Persian Gulf. The US attempt to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons, therefore, is all about Israel and has nothing to do with Iran or US security. It is all about Israel. Get it?[/quote]

okay, I was half reading during work … break. Now I am half reading during lunch break almost sleeping …

If anyone says now “Iran is a sovereign country and the UN says” I will fall completly asleep …

14

[quote=“fred smith”]Let me ask you once again Spook and this time I hope you have the guts to answer me directly:

Do you think that Jews in the US administration (read Neocons) were reponsible for getting the US to invade Iraq solely to protect Israel? Yes or no. It is a very simple question and one that I doubt very highly that you will answer. So what is it? Yes or no.[/quote]

No. My opinion is that Americans who are ardent supporters of Israel – George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz – ‘Fred Smith’ – pushed for an invasion of Iraq primarily to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was an arch-enemy of Israel and meant it harm.

It wasn’t really because of weapons of mass destruction, UN resolutions, connections to Al Queda – concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

At the very least it was a significant reason why they were pushing for an invasion of Iraq without delay.

I neither know nor care what religious faith you are. All I know is you’re an ardent supporter of Israel, don’t want to admit it, and your ardency is a primary reason for your vociferous advocacy of making war on Israel’s sworn enemies.

Tell me that I’m wrong about you and your allegiances and motivations and that will be proof enough that my observations are wrong.

15

Spook:

Ah so we are getting somewhere. I can honestly say that for me, Israel was not even a part of the equation. I was fed up with 12 years of bullshit with sanctions, no fly zones, inspectors in, inspectors out, the troops were stuck in Saudi Arabia to protect against Saddam and the Saudis were f***ing around with us left right and center. Did anyone ever get caught or prosecuted for the truck bomb in al Khobar? No. That is what I was fed up with and at least we are now dealing with the problem rather than sticking more duct tape on a leaking high pressure hose. So there you have it. No, Israel was not my main concern. My main concern was dealing with this fuckwit once and for all to protect Persian Gulf and its oil supplies.

Now, do you honestly believe that all the non Jews that you mentioned from the president on down are going to be in any way beholden to Israel? Hell, the population of Arabs in the states and they are just as rich (think of all the oil) has probably surpassed that of the 1.5 percent accounted for by the Jews and they vote in large inspired numbers as well. So back to you. Why is it always about the Jews, er, that is Israel for you? Do you REALLY think that is why we invaded? REALLY?!!! Talk about whacked out. Up the meds.

16

[quote=“fred smith”]
I can honestly say that for me, Israel was not even a part of the equation. . . No, Israel was not my main concern.

I was fed up with:

  • 12 years of bullshit with sanctions
    *no fly zones
    *inspectors in, inspectors out
    *the troops were stuck in Saudi Arabia
    *My main concern was dealing with this fuckwit once and for all to protect Persian Gulf and its oil supplies. [/quote]

Interesting. So this was all about oil and Saddam being a nuisance?

What about threatening the security of the United States and terrorists and this ‘not being about oil’? Where the heck did all that go? Don’t tell me you guys have just been putting us on here for the last two years.

I’m totally confused.

And why is having troops stuck in Iraq better than having them stuck in Saudi Arabia? It seems to me they were a lot better off there than they are being stuck in Iraq.

I’m also prepared to accept your assertion that Israel is not a factor for you but I need a clarification and an answer. Are you or are you not a strong supporter of Israel and was ‘Israel not even a part of the equation’ or just ‘not your main concern’?

17

If this is confusing for you Spookie then too bad. The reasons for invading Iraq have been enumerated over and over again and we have the debate about why the media chose to focus in on only one aspect: wmds but even with wmds, please find me one intelligence service that did not believe Saddam had them or that he was not a threat.

Israel was 100 percent NOT a factor not even a minor one my reasons for supporting the invasion of Iraq. NOT EVEN 1 percent.

That said, I do support Israel. It is an enlightened democracy and one worthy of our support. I believe that the Palestinians like Saddam have been given too many chances. Bad leadership, blah blah blah. If Israel feels that it needs more territory in the West bank to defend itself then so be it. If that is a big deal then I will look forward to the return of Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania to Germany. If not, then they will have to accept that people who play with matches (start wars) occasionally get burned and part of that may be loss of territory. Send them all to Egypt or Jordan. Hell, Said grew up in Egypt so did Arafat. A lot more of them can grow up there, Syria, Lebanon or Jordan or wherever the hell they can find space if they fuck up this chance to make peace with Israel now that Arafat is gone.

See spookie: It is all about patience. Mine was gone for Saddam, nearly gone for the Palestinians and increasingly wearing thin with the Europeans and their “concerns” and “discussions” and “dialogues” and “international law when it suits them.” Get it?

18

Then dont be to surprised Fred when those ‘bastards’ in europe lose patience with the Us and start boycotting it. At the rate he is currently going then patience will have run out before Dubya leaves office, and the real legacy of his tenure will be left for all to see.

19

Boycott? Hahah what are you smoking. I am merely suggesting that there is no need to “consult” with the Europeans who often choose not to “consult” with the US. We are usually presented with a plan like Kyoto or the International Criminal Court and expected to swallow it whole. We have given the British, French and Germans more than two years to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem. What have you accomplished?

20

Jan 2003 State of the Union Address

whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 28-19.html

[quote] America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.[/quote]

October 2002 Speech in Cincinnati

guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, … 78,00.html

[quote] Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.

As a former chief weapons inspector of the UN has said, “The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself.” Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States. [/quote][/quote]

Not sure what you mean by “He never said Iraq could threaten the US directly.”