Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't attacking an embassy the same as attacking the country, because it's sovereign? If so, we just attacked Iran.
Who would've guessed Iraq would become the 'distraction'?
Troops raid Iranian offices in Iraqi city
Staff and agencies
Thursday January 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
US soldiers raided Iranian government offices in the Iraqi city of Irbil today, hours after George Bush pledged to "seek out and destroy" Iran's networks in Iraq.
The troops stormed the building at around 3am, arresting six Iranians and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said.
Irbil, 220 miles from the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, is in the Kurdish-controlled north of the country.
Tehran responded to the raid by summoning the ambassadors of Iraq and Switzerland. The latter represents US interests in Iran, where there is no US embassy.
A spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry said the raid was intended to "create tension" between Iraq and its neighbours, adding that the raided office was an official diplomatic mission.
The raid came as the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Mr Bush's warning to Iran to end its destabilising interference in Iraq.
"The president made very clear last night that we know that Iran is engaged in activities that are endangering our troops, activities that are destabilising the young Iraqi government, and that we're going to pursue those who may be involved in those activities," she told Fox News. The US military issued a statement saying it had taken six people into custody in the Irbil region, but made no mention of a raid on Iranian offices.
However, a senior US military official at the Pentagon, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press that the office targeted was not a consulate and did not have diplomatic status.
General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said Iran appeared to be responsible for arming insurgents in Iraq.
"I think it's instructive that in the last couple of weeks two of those raids that we conducted to go after these folks that are providing these kinds of weapons, two of those raids had policed up Iranians," he said.
"So it is clear that the Iranians are complicit in providing weapons. And it's also clear that we will do all we need to do to defend our troops in Iraq by going after the entire network, regardless of where those people come from."
A resident living near the scene of the raid said soldiers used stun bombs, bringing down an Iranian flag on the roof of the two-storey building. As the operation went on, two helicopters flew overhead, the resident added.
Later, a number of Kurdish guerrillas could be seen around the building, preventing people from getting close and not allowing cameramen to take pictures.
The raid came shortly after Mr Bush rejected the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to open diplomatic channels to Iran and Syria in an effort to end the growing violence in Iraq.
In his speech last night, he accused both of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq".
"We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Next stop: Iran
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
They are really trying to push this Iran issue...are they trying to start a new war before the elections?
IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on
Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."
"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.
"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."
The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether
Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading
Iraq and toppling Saddam.
ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.
IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on
Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."
"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.
"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."
The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether
Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading
Iraq and toppling Saddam.
ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
It's pretty scary when the leader of the so-called "axis of evil" makes more sense than our own president.
I think his comments on the veto powers of the UN security council are dead on.
Iran president wants TV debate with Bush
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the
U.N. Security Council as
Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with
President Bush on world issues.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.
"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.
"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.
Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.
"The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it," he said.
Iran last week responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment — the key demand — before engaging in further talks.
Ahmadinejad called the response an opportunity for the two sides to resolve the issue and he didn't rule out the possibility of direct talks with the United States.
"The opportunity the Iranian nation has given to other countries today is a very exceptional opportunity for a fair resolution of the issue," he said.
The Iranian president also called
Israel a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.
"The Zionist regime has deprived the Palestinian nation and other nations of the region of a single day of peace. In the past 60 years, it has imposed tens of wars on the Palestinian nation and others," he said.
I think his comments on the veto powers of the UN security council are dead on.
Iran president wants TV debate with Bush
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the
U.N. Security Council as
Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with
President Bush on world issues.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.
"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.
"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.
Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.
"The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it," he said.
Iran last week responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment — the key demand — before engaging in further talks.
Ahmadinejad called the response an opportunity for the two sides to resolve the issue and he didn't rule out the possibility of direct talks with the United States.
"The opportunity the Iranian nation has given to other countries today is a very exceptional opportunity for a fair resolution of the issue," he said.
The Iranian president also called
Israel a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.
"The Zionist regime has deprived the Palestinian nation and other nations of the region of a single day of peace. In the past 60 years, it has imposed tens of wars on the Palestinian nation and others," he said.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
HarryGoldfarb
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
- Location: Colombia
- Contact:
Actually I have a lot of feelings about him but I don't think I want to share them... we live under his preassure and constant presence here and it's not easy... I'm here writing this tryin' nor to think about a lot or realities surrounding me...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
-
HarryGoldfarb
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
- Location: Colombia
- Contact:
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Is Tomorrow Doomsday?
August 21, 2006 12:52 PM
ABCNews.com
Asa Eslocker Reports:
While no extra safeguards are in place, U.S. law enforcement are not ignoring the possible significance of tomorrow's date, August 22, a date that marks an important historic event on the Islamic calendar.
Internet websites have been full of speculation that it could be a target date for terrorists in commemoration of the return of the 12th imam, a supposed day of reckoning for Shiites.
August 22 was rumored by intelligence experts to be a possible date that the London plotters would blow-up passenger planes headed towards the United States, though it is not known if the suspects were Shiite extremists.
This year, August 22 marks the holy day on the Islamic calendar that is the day of reckoning for Shiites. Some Shiite sects believe that August 22 could correspond to the end of the world. And just today, after much hype, Iran has announced that it will continue to develop its nuclear program. To followers of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this is a well-timed affront to Israel, the United States and the world. The United Nations had given Iran until the end of the month to respond, but Ahmadinejad had made it clear to all Iranians and the world that he intended to respond on the eve of August 22.
Whether or not this announcement is the end of Ahmadinejad's plans for August 22, one expert says we will have to wait and watch.
"The only thing we can know is that the date was not chosen by accident," said Robert Spencer, Director of Jihadwatch.org and an adjunct fellow at the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It does seem very likely, very probable, that he has something major in mind, whether only a major announcement or a major attack, we will soon see."
August 21, 2006 12:52 PM
ABCNews.com
Asa Eslocker Reports:
While no extra safeguards are in place, U.S. law enforcement are not ignoring the possible significance of tomorrow's date, August 22, a date that marks an important historic event on the Islamic calendar.
Internet websites have been full of speculation that it could be a target date for terrorists in commemoration of the return of the 12th imam, a supposed day of reckoning for Shiites.
August 22 was rumored by intelligence experts to be a possible date that the London plotters would blow-up passenger planes headed towards the United States, though it is not known if the suspects were Shiite extremists.
This year, August 22 marks the holy day on the Islamic calendar that is the day of reckoning for Shiites. Some Shiite sects believe that August 22 could correspond to the end of the world. And just today, after much hype, Iran has announced that it will continue to develop its nuclear program. To followers of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this is a well-timed affront to Israel, the United States and the world. The United Nations had given Iran until the end of the month to respond, but Ahmadinejad had made it clear to all Iranians and the world that he intended to respond on the eve of August 22.
Whether or not this announcement is the end of Ahmadinejad's plans for August 22, one expert says we will have to wait and watch.
"The only thing we can know is that the date was not chosen by accident," said Robert Spencer, Director of Jihadwatch.org and an adjunct fellow at the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It does seem very likely, very probable, that he has something major in mind, whether only a major announcement or a major attack, we will soon see."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
US spells out plan to bomb Iran
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent May 16 2006
The Herald
THE US is updating contingency plans for a non-nuclear strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon programme if international diplomacy fails, Pentagon sources have confirmed.
Strategists are understood to have presented two options for pinpoint strikes using B2 bombers flying directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in the Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
RAF Fairford in Gloucester also has facilities for B2s but this has been ruled out because of the UK's opposition to military action against Tehran.
The main plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets in Iran, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters.
At least 75 targets in underground complexes would be attacked with waves of bunker-buster bombs.
Iranian radar networks and air defence bases would be struck by submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and then kept out of action by carrier aircraft flying from warships in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.
The alternative to an all-out campaign is a demonstration strike against one or two high-profile targets such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility or the hexafluoride gas plant at Isfahan.
UK sources say contingency plans have also been drawn up to cope with the inevitable backlash against the Basra garrison in neighbouring Iraq.
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent May 16 2006
The Herald
THE US is updating contingency plans for a non-nuclear strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon programme if international diplomacy fails, Pentagon sources have confirmed.
Strategists are understood to have presented two options for pinpoint strikes using B2 bombers flying directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in the Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
RAF Fairford in Gloucester also has facilities for B2s but this has been ruled out because of the UK's opposition to military action against Tehran.
The main plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets in Iran, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters.
At least 75 targets in underground complexes would be attacked with waves of bunker-buster bombs.
Iranian radar networks and air defence bases would be struck by submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and then kept out of action by carrier aircraft flying from warships in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.
The alternative to an all-out campaign is a demonstration strike against one or two high-profile targets such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility or the hexafluoride gas plant at Isfahan.
UK sources say contingency plans have also been drawn up to cope with the inevitable backlash against the Basra garrison in neighbouring Iraq.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
It probably doesn’t mean anything, but it caught my attention.... In minor news, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismisses his Foreign Minister, Jack Straw. Straw’s dismissal came as a major surprise, and reasons for this aren’t clear, but here’s what New York Times speculates (highlights added):
--------------------
Reuters news agency reported that Ms. Rice telephoned Mr. Straw on Friday. Mr. Blair has not explained why he removed Mr. Straw as foreign secretary. But newspapers on Saturday ascribed Mr. Straw's dismissal to factors including Mr. Blair's dislike of the highly publicized friendship between Mr. Straw and Ms. Rice, Mr. Straw's rejection of a possible military solution in the Iran nuclear crisis and Mr. Blair's suspicion that Mr. Straw was positioning himself to win favor with Mr. Brown. Mr. Straw has described the likelihood of military action against Iran as "inconceivable," while Mr. Blair, like the Bush administration, has been more circumspect about keeping options open to pressure Iran.
The new foreign minister, Margaret Beckett, a longtime Labor politician who was environment minister, will be plunged into her new job on Monday as she enters negotiations on Iran at the United Nations.
In the past, particularly in the Iraq war, Mr. Blair has often taken the lead in running Britain's foreign policy, and Mr. Straw's exit may be designed to give the prime minister more leeway in the Iran crisis.
--------------------
Reuters news agency reported that Ms. Rice telephoned Mr. Straw on Friday. Mr. Blair has not explained why he removed Mr. Straw as foreign secretary. But newspapers on Saturday ascribed Mr. Straw's dismissal to factors including Mr. Blair's dislike of the highly publicized friendship between Mr. Straw and Ms. Rice, Mr. Straw's rejection of a possible military solution in the Iran nuclear crisis and Mr. Blair's suspicion that Mr. Straw was positioning himself to win favor with Mr. Brown. Mr. Straw has described the likelihood of military action against Iran as "inconceivable," while Mr. Blair, like the Bush administration, has been more circumspect about keeping options open to pressure Iran.
The new foreign minister, Margaret Beckett, a longtime Labor politician who was environment minister, will be plunged into her new job on Monday as she enters negotiations on Iran at the United Nations.
In the past, particularly in the Iraq war, Mr. Blair has often taken the lead in running Britain's foreign policy, and Mr. Straw's exit may be designed to give the prime minister more leeway in the Iran crisis.
US planned war against Iran before Iraq invasion
‘Tehran bolstering nuclear sites’
WASHINGTON: The United States began planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran that involves missile strikes, a land invasion and a naval operation to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a former US intelligence analyst disclosed on Sunday.
William Arkin, who served as the US Army’s top intelligence mind on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for "Theater Iran Near Term".
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2006-daily/17-04-2006/main/main3.htm
‘Tehran bolstering nuclear sites’
WASHINGTON: The United States began planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran that involves missile strikes, a land invasion and a naval operation to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a former US intelligence analyst disclosed on Sunday.
William Arkin, who served as the US Army’s top intelligence mind on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for "Theater Iran Near Term".
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2006-daily/17-04-2006/main/main3.htm
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Doubts About Taking On Tehran
About half those polled support military action if Iran continues its nuclear activity but don't trust President Bush to make the call.
By Doyle McManus, LA Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust President Bush to make the "right decision" on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
Asked whether they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, 48% of the poll's respondents, or almost half, said yes; 40% said no....
BUT....
...In a telling reflection of Bush's erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran," while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.
That was a reversal of public sentiment since 2003, on the eve of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, when 55% of respondents said they trusted him to make the right decision over whether to go to war.
The poll results and interviews with individual respondents made it clear that the experience of Iraq — both the discovery that U.S. intelligence was wrong to declare that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the costly continuing conflict against Iraqi insurgents — have persuaded many Americans to be cautious about going to war against neighboring Iran.
---------------------------------
A clear case of "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, won't get fooled again."
About half those polled support military action if Iran continues its nuclear activity but don't trust President Bush to make the call.
By Doyle McManus, LA Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust President Bush to make the "right decision" on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
Asked whether they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, 48% of the poll's respondents, or almost half, said yes; 40% said no....
BUT....
...In a telling reflection of Bush's erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran," while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.
That was a reversal of public sentiment since 2003, on the eve of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, when 55% of respondents said they trusted him to make the right decision over whether to go to war.
The poll results and interviews with individual respondents made it clear that the experience of Iraq — both the discovery that U.S. intelligence was wrong to declare that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the costly continuing conflict against Iraqi insurgents — have persuaded many Americans to be cautious about going to war against neighboring Iran.
---------------------------------
A clear case of "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, won't get fooled again."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Greg wrote:Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps....germany
I hope everyone has read this story thoroughly, because the headline is misleading. What it should read is Iran could produce a nuclear bomb in 16 days... or 271 days... or 13 years...
They have no idea what they're talking about. And we're supposed to slaughter thousands more innocent people based on this embarrassing non-consensus?
Criddic, even going by the standards of your usual eloquence, your big details, little details statement is particularly repulsive, since these little details have led now led to the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians. But pish-tosh, that's just a piddling detail.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Condoliesa Bitch Is now calling for "strong steps against Iran." Apparently, she's hoping enough people will forget her "mushroom clouds" remark re Iraq.
Rice Urges U.N. to Take 'Strong Steps' on Iran
By Fred Barbash and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; 12:45 PM
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reacting to Iran's latest advance in nuclear technology, said today that the United Nations Security Council must now take "strong steps" to "maintain the credibility of the international community."
At the United Nations, China's ambassador Wang Guangya announced that the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany would meet in the next few days to address the latest development in the ongoing nuclear crisis with Tehran.
Rice to Consider Force Against Iran
Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course.
Rice's comments followed an announcement from Tehran yesterday that the country had taken a major step forward in its ability to process uranium into fissionable material, an advance necessary to produce nuclear fuel or a nuclear weapon. Iran says it has only peaceful uses in mind, but the United States and its European allies think otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....66.html
Rice Urges U.N. to Take 'Strong Steps' on Iran
By Fred Barbash and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; 12:45 PM
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reacting to Iran's latest advance in nuclear technology, said today that the United Nations Security Council must now take "strong steps" to "maintain the credibility of the international community."
At the United Nations, China's ambassador Wang Guangya announced that the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany would meet in the next few days to address the latest development in the ongoing nuclear crisis with Tehran.
Rice to Consider Force Against Iran
Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course.
Rice's comments followed an announcement from Tehran yesterday that the country had taken a major step forward in its ability to process uranium into fissionable material, an advance necessary to produce nuclear fuel or a nuclear weapon. Iran says it has only peaceful uses in mind, but the United States and its European allies think otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....66.html
Sonic, you miss a key point here. The U.S. intelligence gives the gov't its info and they take what credibility the info has and use it to make its case in any scenario. Their rationale is that it is better to be wrong about the little details than to not do anything and be wrong on the big ones (ie. September 11). Better to prevent a possibly major problem now than to be hit with an emergency problem later.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE F UCK THEY DID WITH IRAQ! HOW F UCKING STUPID IS EVERYBODY TO FALL FOR IT AGAIN??
WE can't make nukes in sixteen days. How are they going to?
And read Damien's story about how Bush knew about a report that debunked the bioweapons claim, but he disregarded it as he did everything else. And he was always wrong and everything else was right. If we allow them to bomb Iran, we deserve everything that's coming to us.
WE can't make nukes in sixteen days. How are they going to?
And read Damien's story about how Bush knew about a report that debunked the bioweapons claim, but he disregarded it as he did everything else. And he was always wrong and everything else was right. If we allow them to bomb Iran, we deserve everything that's coming to us.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler