|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| While it would be better if Iran does not develop a nuclear strike capability, I do not believe it has to be the end of the world if she does. The West survived the Soviet Union and China getting the bomb and Israel can survive Iran getting it. Starting a war to maintain Israeli nuclear superiority does not sound like a good deal. |
It doesn't? Consider this. If Iran gets the bomb, you'll have at least 2 nuclear programs start in the Middle East. The Saudis, the Egyptians, maybe the Turks.
Its not about protecting Israel anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
friendoken
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801026.htm
It seems to me that Israel is not the innocent victim here. It is a card they play at every opportunity and much of the western world's governments - and their gullible citizenry - fall for the tired old sob story.
Israel has been, and continues to be, the lead aggressor in the Middle East, and is clearly bent on starting a war that may entirely likely spread beyond the local boundaries. They illegally have nuclear weapons, which were built and/or procured through spying and theft.
If Israel's neighbours become nuclear powers, it can just as easily act as a stabilizing force in the region, insofar that it will keep the Israeli's in line.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaganovich
There is so much information relating to the dark side of Israel, its citizens past and present, and how they have committed atrocities against their own, and other, peoples. With Jewish interests controlling the western media, is it any wonder that we hear, and read, a decidedly one-sided version of Israel's story?
I hope Iran does get nuclear weaponry power, and the Saudis, and the rest of the Middle East states. It may be the only thing capable of stopping Israel from starting a war that will end up dragging the U.S. in, which will likely bring in other Nuclear powers like Russia and China.
No sir, I have not drank the Israeli made Kool-Aid. They are not the hard done by partner here. Quite the opposite is the most likely version. If you can't see it, you are getting all of your information from Mr. Stein, or Berg, or some precious metal. Wake up and smell the blintz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| friendoken wrote: |
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801026.htm
It seems to me that Israel is not the innocent victim here. It is a card they play at every opportunity and much of the western world's governments - and their gullible citizenry - fall for the tired old sob story.
Israel has been, and continues to be, the lead aggressor in the Middle East, and is clearly bent on starting a war that may entirely likely spread beyond the local boundaries. They illegally have nuclear weapons, which were built and/or procured through spying and theft.
If Israel's neighbours become nuclear powers, it can just as easily act as a stabilizing force in the region, insofar that it will keep the Israeli's in line.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaganovich
There is so much information relating to the dark side of Israel, its citizens past and present, and how they have committed atrocities against their own, and other, peoples. With Jewish interests controlling the western media, is it any wonder that we hear, and read, a decidedly one-sided version of Israel's story?
I hope Iran does get nuclear weaponry power, and the Saudis, and the rest of the Middle East states. It may be the only thing capable of stopping Israel from starting a war that will end up dragging the U.S. in, which will likely bring in other Nuclear powers like Russia and China.
No sir, I have not drank the Israeli made Kool-Aid. They are not the hard done by partner here. Quite the opposite is the most likely version. If you can't see it, you are getting all of your information from Mr. Stein, or Berg, or some precious metal. Wake up and smell the blintz. |
The Washington Report on Mideast Affairs is funded with with foreign money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
The new 30000lb bunker buster is more then adequate for destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilties. The goal of any strike wouldnt be to "knock out" Iran, but to destroy their nuclear production capabilities.
As far as the note about sponsoring terror, Iran has been doing that for years vis a vis, Hezbollah without many consequences so I doubt they are too concerned. |
According to Seymour Hersh, yes, the goal of an Israeli strike on Iran would be precisely to knock out Iranian command and control. They would strike Tehran political and military targets in the hopes of paralyzing the country and allowing perhaps for a more extended campaign against their extensive and protected nuclear research sites and missile facilities. Their nuclear production capabilities, such as little as we know about them, are more spread out and protected than Osiraq was in the early 80s. |
Hersh? since when is a guy who as of late has made some crazy claims,
(such as that US Navy seals would attack fellow americans..explained later in this post)
and Seymour Hersh has very little credbility.
1. His guessing is speculation at best. No Israeli official has ever briefed him on their contingency plans. He hasnt been to any planning meetings. Nothing. He has no credibility. Hes like the boy who called wolf.
He has said seevral times about both the US and Israel that well be going to war this month or that month and sure enough it doesnt happen.
Especially when he said the US was going to us B-61 thermonuclear bombs on Iran..
That in itself shows him non credible on this issue, as the B-61 thermonuclear bomb is a gravity bomb that detonates on the surface not underground
Or Hersh's claim that Cheney planned a operation to start a war by having US navy SEALs dress as Iranian PT boat crews and then start fights with US Ships.
Those kind of crazy claims , made without any evidence whatsoever, reduce Hersh's credibility to nil. |
I'm getting the sense that you'd impeach any source that wasn't politically aligned with your own views.
Listen, unlike some of Hersh's other claims, this one makes sense. You take out command & control and darken the picture for the Iranians. One assumes that Iranian C&C isn't as stable or reinforced as, say, American C&C. Paralysis of C&C might also have some salutory effects re: Hezbollah reaction, given how close Hezbollah and Iran are. Nevertheless, I have at least one source for my conception of likely Israeli strategy. And I'm very doubtful that the Israelis, as reality-based as they are shrewd (as opposed to this administration pre-2006), would simply try another Osiraq operation given the manifest differences of Iran's situation today from Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s. |
wtf? No.
Hersh makes ridiculous claims without proof. And your response, is
"I'm getting the sense that you'd impeach any source that wasn't politically aligned with your own views. "
heh. Im sorry but outrageous claims take evidence. Im not going to believe soemthing simply because some guy who has never been in a position to know jack squat and has no proof says so.
Hersh is alot like the national enquirer. makes outrageous claims without proof. little credbility. it isnt about political leanings, I am a person of evidence.
It doesnt matter either way. Under any circumstances, Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
friendoken
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| friendoken wrote: |
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801026.htm
It seems to me that Israel is not the innocent victim here. It is a card they play at every opportunity and much of the western world's governments - and their gullible citizenry - fall for the tired old sob story.
Israel has been, and continues to be, the lead aggressor in the Middle East, and is clearly bent on starting a war that may entirely likely spread beyond the local boundaries. They illegally have nuclear weapons, which were built and/or procured through spying and theft.
If Israel's neighbours become nuclear powers, it can just as easily act as a stabilizing force in the region, insofar that it will keep the Israeli's in line.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaganovich
There is so much information relating to the dark side of Israel, its citizens past and present, and how they have committed atrocities against their own, and other, peoples. With Jewish interests controlling the western media, is it any wonder that we hear, and read, a decidedly one-sided version of Israel's story?
I hope Iran does get nuclear weaponry power, and the Saudis, and the rest of the Middle East states. It may be the only thing capable of stopping Israel from starting a war that will end up dragging the U.S. in, which will likely bring in other Nuclear powers like Russia and China.
No sir, I have not drank the Israeli made Kool-Aid. They are not the hard done by partner here. Quite the opposite is the most likely version. If you can't see it, you are getting all of your information from Mr. Stein, or Berg, or some precious metal. Wake up and smell the blintz. |
The Washington Report on Mideast Affairs is funded with with foreign money. |
It is true nonetheless. Israel is the problem and Iran should go nuclear, it may very well be the only thing saving the world from a global thermonuclear war. Israel have shown their true colours many times, they are bent on war and global domination. Do not be so myopic as to elieve their intentions are peaceful, ask the hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children who now are underground how peaceful Israel is. What is wrong with you people??????? Are you blind, deaf, dumb, brainwashed, or just stupid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hersh is a very well respected journalist. I'm sorry, but Kuros is right and it is right wing extremists who question his credibility. He goes after some nice and juicy myths held by the right (like the idea that the military wouldn't manufacture a situation to create the public reaction favorable to war, like for Vietnam or what he is reporting about the Seals in the Persian Gulf).
But no matter. An attack on Iran would be a disaster. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I'm not exactly fond of obedient muslims. And I'm especially not fond of the obedient muslims who run Iran. And I would be exceedingly uncomfortable with them having nukes. But an attack on Iran would trigger an economic depression. Shit, we are on the edge of a depression right now and need a solid push to fall over. The retaliations against energy supplies/infrastructure, the attacks on American interests in Iraq and abroad and the very real likely attacks in the United States would push much of the world into an economic nightmare.
And also, attacks against American troops in Iraq or Americans in the US would cause a massive emotive response from Americans. They would be calling for blood and revenge and a Bush or McCain presidency might take them there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| friendoken wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| friendoken wrote: |
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801026.htm
It seems to me that Israel is not the innocent victim here. It is a card they play at every opportunity and much of the western world's governments - and their gullible citizenry - fall for the tired old sob story.
Israel has been, and continues to be, the lead aggressor in the Middle East, and is clearly bent on starting a war that may entirely likely spread beyond the local boundaries. They illegally have nuclear weapons, which were built and/or procured through spying and theft.
If Israel's neighbours become nuclear powers, it can just as easily act as a stabilizing force in the region, insofar that it will keep the Israeli's in line.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaganovich
There is so much information relating to the dark side of Israel, its citizens past and present, and how they have committed atrocities against their own, and other, peoples. With Jewish interests controlling the western media, is it any wonder that we hear, and read, a decidedly one-sided version of Israel's story?
I hope Iran does get nuclear weaponry power, and the Saudis, and the rest of the Middle East states. It may be the only thing capable of stopping Israel from starting a war that will end up dragging the U.S. in, which will likely bring in other Nuclear powers like Russia and China.
No sir, I have not drank the Israeli made Kool-Aid. They are not the hard done by partner here. Quite the opposite is the most likely version. If you can't see it, you are getting all of your information from Mr. Stein, or Berg, or some precious metal. Wake up and smell the blintz. |
The Washington Report on Mideast Affairs is funded with with foreign money. |
It is true nonetheless. Israel is the problem and Iran should go nuclear, it may very well be the only thing saving the world from a global thermonuclear war. Israel have shown their true colours many times, they are bent on war and global domination. Do not be so myopic as to elieve their intentions are peaceful, ask the hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children who now are underground how peaceful Israel is. What is wrong with you people??????? Are you blind, deaf, dumb, brainwashed, or just stupid? |
If Israel is bent on war and global domination then why are they so small.
If Israel is so into war then why did they have good relations with Iran before the Shah came to power.
And why did they accept Bill Clintons' peace plan.
And here is the other side that you do not report . Israel's enemies sided with the Nazis . And launch a war of annihilation in 1948 .and by the way they also persecute their minorites worse than Israel does.
But that doesn't count in your book.
| Quote: |
| Are you blind, deaf, dumb, brainwashed, or just stupid?[ |
I dunno but I am perceptive enought to see and know what you are about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Hersh is a very well respected journalist. I'm sorry, but Kuros is right and it is right wing extremists who question his credibility. He goes after some nice and juicy myths held by the right (like the idea that the military wouldn't manufacture a situation to create the public reaction favorable to war, like for Vietnam or what he is reporting about the Seals in the Persian Gulf).
But no matter. An attack on Iran would be a disaster. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I'm not exactly fond of obedient muslims. And I'm especially not fond of the obedient muslims who run Iran. And I would be exceedingly uncomfortable with them having nukes. But an attack on Iran would trigger an economic depression. Shit, we are on the edge of a depression right now and need a solid push to fall over. The retaliations against energy supplies/infrastructure, the attacks on American interests in Iraq and abroad and the very real likely attacks in the United States would push much of the world into an economic nightmare.
And also, attacks against American troops in Iraq or Americans in the US would cause a massive emotive response from Americans. They would be calling for blood and revenge and a Bush or McCain presidency might take them there. |
Hersh is a crack pot. He makes claims without evidence.
Like, cited in my message to Kuros, hersh at one point claimed that Navy Seals were going to dress up as Iranian PT boat crews and attack US ships..
and none of these claims he has ever provided has hehad any proof, and none of them come true either. If your going to make out rageous claims, you need proof. hersh has about as much credibility as the national enquirer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Hersh is a very well respected journalist. I'm sorry, but Kuros is right and it is right wing extremists who question his credibility... |
I disagree. We ought to value some of S. Hersh's reporting -- My Lai, for example. But his writing is just as often of no value -- unless you value the muckracker's ability to assemble a collection of unattributed sources and hurl sensational rumor and allegation into the public discourse in order to provoke, from his perspective at least, the desired response.
And I dimiss his book on JFK as pure character assassination and, in many places, unbelievably irresponsible and transparently soap-operaish, more fit for the E! Channel than anything worthy of any serious person's time. Indeed, A. Schlesinger, Jr. dismissed Hersh as "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered." Do you judge Schlesinger "a right-winger?"
Further, Hersh's reporting on the alleged inevitable Iranian-American war are simply lies meant to rattle the antiwar mob's cage so that they might more insistently pressure the legislature and the press to rally against the administration. Nice objective, and I agree an Iranian-American war, given present conditions, would be unjust and would not fly well -- but so do the SecDef and the JCS, and this for much longer than Hersh's so-called reporting on this.
As a colleague often says about authors: consider them guilty until proven innocent. And in Hersh's case, I evaluate him guilty at least as much as he is innocent. That is, he is hit and miss. I have not seen him proven innocent on his "the Iranian-American war is imminent and already upon us!" charges, either. Just plausible -- the allegation that W. Bush and Cheney might desire it, that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
The new 30000lb bunker buster is more then adequate for destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilties. The goal of any strike wouldnt be to "knock out" Iran, but to destroy their nuclear production capabilities.
As far as the note about sponsoring terror, Iran has been doing that for years vis a vis, Hezbollah without many consequences so I doubt they are too concerned. |
According to Seymour Hersh, yes, the goal of an Israeli strike on Iran would be precisely to knock out Iranian command and control. They would strike Tehran political and military targets in the hopes of paralyzing the country and allowing perhaps for a more extended campaign against their extensive and protected nuclear research sites and missile facilities. Their nuclear production capabilities, such as little as we know about them, are more spread out and protected than Osiraq was in the early 80s. |
Hersh? since when is a guy who as of late has made some crazy claims,
(such as that US Navy seals would attack fellow americans..explained later in this post)
and Seymour Hersh has very little credbility.
1. His guessing is speculation at best. No Israeli official has ever briefed him on their contingency plans. He hasnt been to any planning meetings. Nothing. He has no credibility. Hes like the boy who called wolf.
He has said seevral times about both the US and Israel that well be going to war this month or that month and sure enough it doesnt happen.
Especially when he said the US was going to us B-61 thermonuclear bombs on Iran..
That in itself shows him non credible on this issue, as the B-61 thermonuclear bomb is a gravity bomb that detonates on the surface not underground
Or Hersh's claim that Cheney planned a operation to start a war by having US navy SEALs dress as Iranian PT boat crews and then start fights with US Ships.
Those kind of crazy claims , made without any evidence whatsoever, reduce Hersh's credibility to nil. |
I'm getting the sense that you'd impeach any source that wasn't politically aligned with your own views.
Listen, unlike some of Hersh's other claims, this one makes sense. You take out command & control and darken the picture for the Iranians. One assumes that Iranian C&C isn't as stable or reinforced as, say, American C&C. Paralysis of C&C might also have some salutory effects re: Hezbollah reaction, given how close Hezbollah and Iran are. Nevertheless, I have at least one source for my conception of likely Israeli strategy. And I'm very doubtful that the Israelis, as reality-based as they are shrewd (as opposed to this administration pre-2006), would simply try another Osiraq operation given the manifest differences of Iran's situation today from Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s. |
wtf? No.
Hersh makes ridiculous claims without proof. And your response, is
"I'm getting the sense that you'd impeach any source that wasn't politically aligned with your own views. "
heh. Im sorry but outrageous claims take evidence. Im not going to believe soemthing simply because some guy who has never been in a position to know jack squat and has no proof says so.
Hersh is alot like the national enquirer. makes outrageous claims without proof. little credbility. it isnt about political leanings, I am a person of evidence.
It doesnt matter either way. Under any circumstances, Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear. |
You mean outrageous claims like "sanctions haven't been working?" Where was your evidence for that?
The reason I'm being ballyhoed is because I gave a name as a source for my claims, whereas I've not seen a damned thing forthcoming from you as for why diplomacy is impossible, the sanctions are not working, and Hersh is a crazy, crazy man.
Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
NAVFC, is this source too lefty for you? How about you, Gopher? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He said the idea was something that was discussed and then quickly disregarded. I don't think that is far out there. He claims to have sources inside the administration. Fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I care little more about this than the claims advanced here that S. Hersh is a reliable, unimpeachable source of information and analysis and that only those on the right-wing object to his reporting. And I do not get the impression that we disagree on that much here but for Hersh, Kuros. I do not agree with NAVFC's belligerency and more to the point, I do not believe that anyone but Hersh believes it exists in any meaningful way in the American govt today.
On Hersh's alleged reliability, I can cite, in great detail if necessary, how journalist Evan Thomas, a lower-profile but far more reliable writer, has challenged Hersh's handling of evidence and has found his claims on multiple issues concerning JFK's assassination and RFK's relationship with M. Monroe highly unlikely if not outright provably false. But it made for a nice best-selling book, I am sure.
And as you can see I also care about Hersh's claims that an American-Iranian war is imminent or already unfolding. Does this sound like pro-war talk to you, Kuros?
| Quote: |
Morning Edition, January 17, 2008 � Iran poses "significant challenges" but is not a direct military threat to the United States in the near term, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an NPR interview. Gates also said he has no plans to send more troops to Afghanistan beyond the recently announced deployment of about 3,000 Marines.
In an interview with Steve Inskeep, Gates discussed threats to American security and how he judges where U.S. forces need to be.
Inskeep: Is Iran the greatest threat that the United States is likely to face in the final year of this administration?
Gates: Well, I think Iran is certainly one of the most significant challenges. We continue to be concerned about their ongoing enrichment programs, their unwillingness to suspend in the face of broad international pressure to do so. So I think it will continue to be a challenge.
Is there a reason you describe them as a challenge rather than a threat?
Well, when I think of a threat, I think of a direct military threat. And while the jury is out in terms of whether they have eased up on their support to those opposing us in Iraq, I don't see the Iranians, in the near term, as a direct military threat to the United States... |
NPR Reports
| Quote: |
| The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday... |
Washington Post
| Quote: |
In the most recent issue of the Army War College's quarterly journal "Parameters," Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote an article titled "Reflections on Leadership," in which he examines the "three principles of war for a democracy" espoused by General Fox Conner -- "a tutor and mentor to both" General Dwight D. Eisenhower and General George Marshall.
Gates applied one of Conner's principles -- "never fight unless you have to" -- to the current situation with Iran:
Conner's axiom -- never fight unless you have to -- looms over policy discussions today regarding rogue nations like Iran that support terrorism; that is a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia and, in my judgment, is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels. |
ThinkProgress.org
Let us look down one level in the chain-of-command...
| Quote: |
The head of US forces in the Middle East has warned of the risks of mounting tensions between Washington and Iran, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and the west square off for a confrontation at the United Nations this week.
In a partial interview transcript released on Sunday by al-Jazeera, the television news service based in Qatar, Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, gave one of the strongest indications yet that the US military is deeply reluctant to consider military action against Tehran.
"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," he told al-Jazeera, according to the transcript. "I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for..." |
Financial Times
| Quote: |
| Fallon: I don't believe for a second President Bush wants a war with Iran. The situation with Iran is very complex. People sometimes portray it or try to portray it in very simplistic terms -- we're against Iran, we want to go to war with Iran, we want to be close to them. ... The reality is in international politics that [there are] many aspects to many of these situations, and I believe in our relationship with Iran we need to be strong and firm and convey the principles on which this country stands and upon which our policies are based. At the same time demonstrate a willingness and openness to engage in dialogue because there are certainly things we can find in common... |
CNN Reports
So W. Bush and D. Cheney want a war with Iran and S. Hersh has heard about it. So what? Let me know when you hear something about anyone at all who is prepared to follow them into such a war. Last I heard, in fact, they had failed even to succeed in moving another carrier into the Persian Gulf. OP's story strongly suggests that this pattern has indeed become entrenched.
What is the issue here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
So W. Bush and D. Cheney want a war with Iran and S. Hersh has heard about it. So what? Let me know when you hear something about anyone at all who is prepared to follow them into such a war. Last I heard, in fact, they had failed even to succeed in moving another carrier into the Persian Gulf. OP's story strongly suggests that this pattern has indeed become entrenched.
What is the issue here? |
The only reason I brought Hersh's theory up, was that I was disputing NAVFC's characterization that an attack would be on the nuclear facilities themselves.
I simply was trying to show that my understanding of the Israeli plan, just a plan!, everyone makes and draws up these kinds of plans!, would be to knock out C&C.
It really has nothing to do with the Bush administration at all. It certainly has nothing to do with whether actor A or B is aggressive, or mean, or bad. It was discussion about what the Israelis would do if A) they had a chance to airstrike Iran, B) and felt they had to take it.
That's why NAVFC's hue and cry about Hersh being a left-wing nutball was so wierd. Because I was not making any kind of point outside of the tactics of a supposed, ideal raid. And when I backed up and decided that I didn't need Hersh, he just wouldn't let it go.
*beep* it. I'm done with this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
