All this talk about Iran...

[toasty]

If you watch the news at all, I'm sure you've all heard the various discussions about Iran's deeper involvement in the Iraq war, its supplying of sophisticated weapons to Iraqis, its continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, etc. It strikes me that this all seems vaguely familiar and smacks of the same talk that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

Question is this: do you think the Iran thing is another bugaboo a la Iraq and its vaunted WMDs, or is it a legitimate and growing threat that might not get the attention it really deserves because Bush cried wolf before the Iraq war? Also, are we destined to attack Iran as well?

[Lorn]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

All good questions. I think time will only tell. Except I do think we are destined to be in conflict with Iran. Not sure if it will be us attacking them or not. I do feel something totally out of the blue will happen over the next 5 years that will escalate things terribly in the region.

[rubyraks]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

You gotta remember that taking out Hussein and the Sunni control of Iraq was a godsend to Iran. For many years, they'd wanted to do the same thing themselves...hell they fought a ten-year war with them that only ended after the rest of the world begged em to stop. Essentially with Iraq up for grabs at the moment and having a Shiite majority, it's no surprise that Iran would strengthen it's hand there and thereby weaken our own. Yet another repurcussion of this administration's failure to think this war through.

[subterFUSE]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

It is a simple fact that Iran is, and always has been, the largest supporter of Islamic terrorism.

And, yes.... of course they are behind most of the trouble in Iraq.

Iran is the largest Shi'ite country. Iraq is mostly Shi'ite. Iran has always wanted to take control of Iraq, and join the countries into a single Shi'ite sphere of influence, smack dab in the middle of the vast oil fields. Saddam was in the way, however. Saddam, a sunni, has opposed Iran.... fought them for more than a decade, and even used WMDs on the Iranians.

The whole world knew that Saddam had WMDs, and that he had used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. This was not in dispute, and anyone disputing it is fucking stupid, blind, a liar, or downright insane. Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMDs. The Iranians also thought Saddam had them, and this was a deterrant to them. Iran was not about to risk another gas attack in retaliation for aggression against a Saddam-controlled Iraq.

But.... once Saddam was removed from power, this deterrant was also removed. Iran knows that while Saddam just might have been crazy enough to use WMDs against them if they attacked.... with the USA, an attack is far less likely.... and a WMD attack is almost 100% certain NOT to occur.

And so now we see Iran actively working inside Iraq, doing whatever they can to destabilize the region. They want control of the country, and are trying to stir up the Shi'ite majority. They are sending fighters over the border, and supplying them with weapons.

The ultimate goal is to control the country, and its oil. This gives them control over much of the global oil market. They have a new bargaining chip with the UN. With control of the oil, they almost assure their quest for a nuclear weapon.

The world will do what it does best.... sit back and talk, but do nothing. Only Israel will act.... and they will act by sending bombers to blow up the Iranian nuke sites. This action will draw huge disapproval from the muslim world, and a new shitstorm will be stirred up. The USA will be forced to defend Israel, because no one else will. And so we will be dragged into yet another conflict.

[runningman]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

yes Iran will be next..

[superdave]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

I'm skeptical too of all the information on Iran in light of the bad intelligence that got us in Iraq. I hear reports that Iran is supporting some of the terror efforts in Iraq, but are they really? We were lied to once before, so why should we be so quick to believe now?

I think the President said this today that Iran may be supporting terror in Iraq, but not sure if it's the Iranian government. It may be rogue Shia militia groups.

[Lorn]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

But.... once Saddam was removed from power, this deterrant was also removed.

Bingo.

[Localizer]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

It is a simple fact that Iran is, and always has been, the largest supporter of Islamic terrorism.

And, yes.... of course they are behind most of the trouble in Iraq.

Iran is the largest Shi'ite country. Iraq is mostly Shi'ite. Iran has always wanted to take control of Iraq, and join the countries into a single Shi'ite sphere of influence, smack dab in the middle of the vast oil fields. Saddam was in the way, however. Saddam, a sunni, has opposed Iran.... fought them for more than a decade, and even used WMDs on the Iranians.

The whole world knew that Saddam had WMDs, and that he had used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. This was not in dispute, and anyone disputing it is fucking stupid, blind, a liar, or downright insane. Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMDs. The Iranians also thought Saddam had them, and this was a deterrant to them. Iran was not about to risk another gas attack in retaliation for aggression against a Saddam-controlled Iraq.

But.... once Saddam was removed from power, this deterrant was also removed. Iran knows that while Saddam just might have been crazy enough to use WMDs against them if they attacked.... with the USA, an attack is far less likely.... and a WMD attack is almost 100% certain NOT to occur.

And so now we see Iran actively working inside Iraq, doing whatever they can to destabilize the region. They want control of the country, and are trying to stir up the Shi'ite majority. They are sending fighters over the border, and supplying them with weapons.

Um, well, according to Drumheller, there was research on WMD's, but no WMD weapons prior to this war. Supposedly they were destroyed. This is only speaking for the last 7 years though.

[Localizer]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

I'm skeptical too of all the information on Iran in light of the bad intelligence that got us in Iraq. I hear reports that Iran is supporting some of the terror efforts in Iraq, but are they really? We were lied to once before, so why should we be so quick to believe now?

I think the President said this today that Iran may be supporting terror in Iraq, but not sure if it's the Iranian government. It may be rogue Shia militia groups.

look at the links that are being played off, everything relating to terror. Saddam kills Abu Nadal over not training Al-Qaeda, therefor Al-Qaeda is presumed to be camping out in Iraq. We're in Iraq now and now that there's really no other excuse to be there other than resources, Iran has become the supposed new terrorist. So now our new fight against terrorism will be the Iranians because now they supposedly back terrorists. I'm not saying, however, that the information is false, I'm just saying we're being towed around on a leash. All I do know though, is that the munitions are coming from either the US or the Russians.

At this point, it's very difficult to trust my own government.

[subterFUSE]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

I'm skeptical too of all the information on Iran in light of the bad intelligence that got us in Iraq. I hear reports that Iran is supporting some of the terror efforts in Iraq, but are they really? We were lied to once before, so why should we be so quick to believe now?

I think the President said this today that Iran may be supporting terror in Iraq, but not sure if it's the Iranian government. It may be rogue Shia militia groups.

If you are skeptical that Iran is involved in the Iraq insurgency, then forgive me for calling you crazy. I'm sorry.... but no serious person can possibly deny that Iran is involved in Iraq now.

You were never "lied to". The word "lie" means to knowingly deceive another. The entire world watched Saddam use WMDs on the Kurds and the Iranians. Everyone knew he had them. He never supplied proof of disarmament. Therefore we had to assume that he still had them. You can't make the assumption that all of these weapons which once existed suddenly disappeared into thin air. Personally, I believe they have been transferred to Syria.... or possibly buried in Iraq. Saddam certainly had enough time to plan for it. The damned UN wasted so much fucking time, he could have hidden just about anything he had.

I'm not trying to be a Bush apologist here.... but if you want to be honest, you must concede the simple fact that worldwide intelligence agencies all agreed that Saddam had WMDs. This dates back long before the Bush admin.

I used to live in Washington, DC. I grew up there. I lived in a nice neighborhood in the Northwest portion of the city. When I was a teenager, a development company began to purchase homes and land near my home. They bulldozed these old homes to the ground and began to build new homes. Shortly after they began their work, a construction crew made a discovery. They found huge caches of unexploded munitions, buried under the ground. These munitions included toxic gas agents such as mustard gas. They turned out to be old World War I munitions.

Here I live, in Washington DC.... what should be the most secure city in the world..... and a construction worker basically finds WMDs buried under a residential neighborhood. Weapons which had been buried for over 60 years, without anyone knowing about it.

So.... it wouldn't surprise me at all if Saddam might have found some place in the desert where he could hide some weapons. If huge stockpiles of mustard gas could be hidden for over 60 years inside the city limits of Washinton, DC.... then I think it is entirely possible that a similar situation could exist in the desert of Iraq, a much larger and more remote area.

[neutrino]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

A better question is who is going to take responsibility here? Does "the buck stop" with the politicians? Does the the excuse "I was just acting on poor intelligence" have any merit? If you don't like who is in government, then vote them out of office.

[Kobe]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

It would be a very bad idea to go running half-cocked into a third conflict with two failing ones on the table already. If we attack Iran it is very likely that it will escalate. I don't think our military is ready for such a battle, we are very thin on allies, and you can pretty much be certain this would bring attacks on US soil. If the goal of all of this is to stop terrorism, I can't think of a worse way to go about that.

But it's not; this war, like all wars, is about money. :rolleyes:

You were never "lied to". The word "lie" means to knowingly deceive another. The entire world watched Saddam use WMDs on the Kurds and the Iranians. Everyone knew he had them. He never supplied proof of disarmament. Therefore we had to assume that he still had them. You can't make the assumption that all of these weapons which once existed suddenly disappeared into thin air. Personally, I believe they have been transferred to Syria.... or possibly buried in Iraq. Saddam certainly had enough time to plan for it. The damned UN wasted so much fucking time, he could have hidden just about anything he had.

I'm not trying to be a Bush apologist here.... but if you want to be honest, you must concede the simple fact that worldwide intelligence agencies all agreed that Saddam had WMDs. This dates back long before the Bush admin..

You are revising history. What we were sold by the Bush administration was that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US, and were developing a nuclear weapon program. I don't think anyone will dispute that he has a few dusty old cans of mustard gas lying around (we sold it to him). The difference being that they knowingly deceived us about the level of threat. Anything that posed the level of threat we were told existed would have been discovered long ago, it was a massive distortion, and a deliberate one.

The Valerie Plame incident is the smoking gun, and even though they managed to make Libby the fall guy, if you don't believe that Cheney et al were behind this as part of an orchestrated effort to deceive the country, "then forgive me for calling you crazy."

[subterFUSE]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

A better question is who is going to take responsibility here? Does "the buck stop" with the politicians? Does the the excuse "I was just acting on poor intelligence" have any merit? If you don't like who is in government, then vote them out of office.

I don't consider bad intelligence an excuse for anything. It is simply an explanation. It is a critical fact which is being willfully ignored by the left, in particular.

I think we need to be taking a serious look at our past. How did it come to be that our intelligence agencies around the world were so wrong? And how to we fix that? Those are the most important questions, I think.

Bad intelligence is just a result. There is a fundamental problem which caused that result, and that's what needs to be addressed.

[toasty]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

If you are skeptical that Iran is involved in the Iraq insurgency, then forgive me for calling you crazy. I'm sorry.... but no serious person can possibly deny that Iran is involved in Iraq now.

OK, these are two different things. It would be silly to "deny" the possibility that Iran could be involved. On the other hand, being "skeptical" is a completely rational position to take.

Remember, all of the information that you, I, and 99% of the populace are getting about Iran's involvement is filtered through US intelligence and the media. This is the same way that we got the "slam dunk" information about Iraq and its WMD programs. Even if you believe that it was a completely innocent mistake, the reality is that that pre-war intelligence was dead wrong and represents one of, if not THE, worst intelligence failures in this nation's history. With that being the state of affairs, reasonable people can and should look at the Iran claims with a jaundiced eye.

There is nothing "crazy" about some healthy skepticism. Indeed, perhaps if people had asked some more questions (or, ahem, paid attention to the contrary evidence), we wouldn't be in the quagmire we're in now.

Actually, isn't the widely accepted definition of crazy repeatedly doing the same thing in the same way and expecting different results? If we plunge ahead into Iran without really making sure we're justified in doing so, as we did in Iraq, aren't we the crazy ones?

For the record, I'm not saying Iran isn't involved. I'm honestly not sure, which is partially why I raised the question. Skepticism, however, is healthy, not crazy.

[toasty]

Re: All this talk about Iran...

OK, compare this:

...but if you want to be honest, you must concede the simple fact that worldwide intelligence agencies all agreed that Saddam had WMDs.

with this:

Personally, I believe they have been transferred to Syria.... or possibly buried in Iraq. Saddam certainly had enough time to plan for it. The damned UN wasted so much fucking time, he could have hidden just about anything he had.

...

So.... it wouldn't surprise me at all if Saddam might have found some place in the desert where he could hide some weapons. If huge stockpiles of mustard gas could be hidden for over 60 years inside the city limits of Washinton, DC.... then I think it is entirely possible that a similar situation could exist in the desert of Iraq, a much larger and more remote area.

Why is it that you rely upon the agreement of worldwide intelligence to make one point, but in the same post, you ignore the fact that every major intelligence agency that has investigated claims that Saddam hid or transferred Iraq's WMDs have found it to be without support? You can't have it both ways...