Pakistan or Iran Next?

[Augustine2004]

This post may not seem apropos of anything in this thread, but it is a reaction to an Darth E post. I was going North while taking a walk. Someone yelled, pointing at me, 'Look at that nutjob, he's approaching North Pole!'

[Darth Executor]

You just read the article?

Yes. I made the stupid mistake of assuming you had reported its contents accurately. I shall make sure never to trust a single word that comes out of your keyboard again.

That's one of your many problems, Darth. Not only are you not that bright and a very insulting individual, but like most extreme reactionaries, you react on impulse and emotion, merely parroting things that have been fed to you by the likes of the Limbaughs and such, before even looking at the facts.

The only person I "parroted" here is you. I mocked your asinine statement that two people reporting different things are "in lockstep". It turned out that not only can you not type up a coherent thought, you also don't even read your own sources properly.

Amano expressed concern that Tehran may be working on a nuclear warhead and confirmed that Iran has started enriching uranium to higher levels, theoretically bringing it close to levels needed for an atomic bomb.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...hH-08ul_Ty5beQ

If it takes 80% grade to make a bomb, I don't think Amano denies Iran's claims that they have upgraded to 20%.

Where does gibbs deny that they're working on a bomb? I mean, the article you quoted says the exact opposite. Some excerpts from it:

"However, the West has long been alarmed over what it believes is Iran's intention to build nuclear weapons. "

and

"Meanwhile, a soon-to-be released U.S. assessment of Iran's nuclear program is expected to conclude the government has resumed limited work on a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. official."

All Gibbs said is that he does not believe they've enriched uranium to the level Iran is claiming they did, not that they're not trying to, or that they're not planning on building nuclear weapons with it. Where's the contradiction?

And there's a difference whether I agree with someone or trust someone. I don't necessary trust Nikolai Makarov's claims because I don't know (though I don't know what would make him claim something like that, especially throw out Mullen's name, if it were true). I do agree that we will attack Iran, because it's looking more and more like the case. But I can't post something that someone claims, whether I trust it or not?

What's the point of posting the claims of people you don't trust? It's quite obvious to any honest observer that you were trying to build up support for your ideas through an appeal to authority: "Hey, this guy's a military big wig and he agrees with me, look!"

I have no idea why Mullen would tell something like that to a Russian general, especially since the situation between the US and Russia are pretty tense. Maybe there's a mistranslation, or Makarov misspoke, or he's just trying to keep people afraid of foreign developments to keep their eyes off the mobsters who run Russia.

For the record, I have no idea if the US plans on attacking Iran (though I have no doubt that the US has such plans drafted in advance in case they have to deal with a sudden emergency). I hope they do because a nuclear armed Iran would be a massive disaster, especially if the weapons get into the hands of Iran's terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Israel, or if the country destabilizes and the nukes "disappear" in al quaeda's welcoming embrace or get used as terror weapons by the mullahs against their own people or israel or other rival nations like Saudi Arabia.

[Darth Executor]

Were you trying to list all my posts? Just a sample, like, IYO the 10 worst posts by me.

I can't, it only shows the last 200 posts and I don't read them regularly. I also pretty much stopped using the search engine because of the 15 second delay. THe post I laughed at earlier is a perfect example of it though. I mean, you're asking me if I'm "an agent of the military-industrial complex". The answer is no btw, I'm an agent of the CIA spreading disinformation among the unwashed masses to distract from our successful coup against the US government..

I'm not that familiar with your posts. I was merely reacting to your 'tin-foil hat' rantings in this thread.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Nice. If you're gonna be reactionary at least do it in a more skilled manner.

[seanD]

What's the point of posting the claims of people you don't trust? It's quite obvious to any honest observer that you were trying to build up support for your ideas through an appeal to authority: "Hey, this guy's a military big wig and he agrees with me, look!"

Building up support for my ideas? And how can assuming an impending attack on Iran be "an idea"? It's pretty obvious to anyone not living under a rock that an attack on Iran has been on the table since the end of the Bush administration. How am I building up "support"? A support for what?

Yes, the guy is a military official, who made a claim about a US attack on Iran, which is the topic of the thread, so I posted it. And again, I don't see why he would make a claim like that if it were false, though I can't confirm it for sure one way or the other. But you have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with his claim.

[Darth Executor]

Building up support for my ideas? It's pretty obvious to anyone not living under a rock that an attack on Iran has been on the table since the end of the Bush administration.

Actually no, it's not obvious at all. Obama's not gonna attack Iran even if they get nuclear weapons and actively brag about it. He's like you in that regard. Plus, he has bigger enemies to deal with, like Britain.

How am I building up "support"? A support for what?

For your theory that there is some grand scheme to attack Iran for nefarious purposes.

Yes, the guy is a military official, who made a claim about a US attack on Iran, which is the topic of the thread, so I posted it.

He's a military official in a country on the other side of the world who is not privy to classified information (and a plan to attack Iran almost certainly is not public knowledge) nor do I see any reason why a US general would tell him that. Why not post the opinion of some kid on a message board? He's about as likely to know what the US is "really planning" as some russian general is.

And again, I don't see why he would make a claim like that if it were false, though I can't confirm it for sure one way or the other.

I gave you a bunch of reasons.

[seanD]

Actually no, it's not obvious at all. Obama's not gonna attack Iran even if they get nuclear weapons and actively brag about it. He's like you in that regard. Plus, he has bigger enemies to deal with, like Britain.

Britain?

And Asia, an even bigger potential foe. I guess we'll have to see.

For your theory that there is some grand scheme to attack Iran for nefarious purposes.

I don't really know what the motive is. It could be driven by a desire to fulfill what the neocons laid out in PNAC. It could be as a strategic maneuver based on oil against China and other Asian countries (a "geopolitical chess game" as Brzezinski described in his book). It could be out of political incompetence, or it could be out of sheer lunacy and paranoia.

He's a military official in a country on the other side of the world who is not privy to classified information (and a plan to attack Iran almost certainly is not public knowledge) nor do I see any reason why a US general would tell him that. Why not post the opinion of some kid on a message board? He's about as likely to know what the US is "really planning" as some russian general is.

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't post it and let others decide for themselves, even though it's related to the thread?

[Darth Executor]

Britain?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/0...-on-falklands/

Obama routinely snubs the Brits, and this is just one of many examples since his election. He rejected their gift of a Winston Churchil boost, he gave the queen an ipod of his speeches, he gave brown some dvds that don't even work in britain. He hates their guts. I think it has something to do with them torturing his uncle in the boer wars or something. Not really that important since it was just a sarcastic remark.

And Asia, an even bigger potential foe. I guess we'll have to see.

No, he's treating Asia (well, China to be more specific) better than he's treating the Brits because he sent the Dalai Lama out the back door along with the trash after his visit.

I don't really know what the motive is. It could be driven by a desire to fulfill what the neocons laid out in PNAC. It could be as a strategic maneuver based on oil against China and other Asian countries (a "geopolitical chess game" as Brzezinski described in his book). It could be out of political incompetence, or it could be out of sheer lunacy and paranoia.

Or it could be that "neocons" don't want dangerous lunatics to wield nuclear weapons.

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't post it and let others decide for themselves, even though it's related to the thread?

I'm saying that if you're gonna post it, don't insult our intelligence and claim you're not using him as an authority to support your agenda.

[seanD]

Obama routinely snubs the Brits, and this is just one of many examples since his election. He rejected their gift of a Winston Churchil boost, he gave the queen an ipod of his speeches, he gave brown some dvds that don't even work in britain. He hates their guts. I think it has something to do with them torturing his uncle in the boer wars or something. Not really that important since it was just a sarcastic remark.

No, he's treating Asia (well, China to be more specific) better than he's treating the Brits because he sent the Dalai Lama out the back door along with the trash after his visit.

And this has led you to the belief that we're POing the Brits more than the Chinese? Dude, seriously, you're clueless.

And I don't know where you're getting you're info about Dalai Lama...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35456043

The Dalai Lama meeting was a major insult to the Chinese, just one amoung many issues between us and the Chinese of late.

Or it could be that "neocons" don't want dangerous lunatics to wield nuclear weapons.

"Dangerous lunatics" as defined by what? Countries that invade and decimate other countries under false pretenses?

I'm saying that if you're gonna post it, don't insult our intelligence and claim you're not using him as an authority to support your agenda.

Again, What "agenda"?

[Darth Executor]

And this has led you to the belief that we're POing the Brits more than the Chinese?

This has led me to believe Obama hates the Brits. I'm not sure why the heck you dragged Asia/China into it to begin with. What indication do you have that Obama hates China? Inviting the Dalai Lama pissed off the Chinese but at least it has some benefits in that it builds up America's reputation with buddhists and sympathizers across asia and the world. How does constantly giving Britain the middle finger for no discernible gain help the US or even Obama personally?

"Dangerous lunatics" as defined by what?

Wanting to destroy other countries, for starters. Then there's the whole matter of sealing elections and murdering citizens who oppose it in the streets.

Countries that invade and decimate other countries under false pretenses?

It wasn't under false pretenses, it was partially based on poor intelligence data and partially based on the fact that Saddam himself was a mass murderer and psychopath. Your kind of guy you could say since you're so in love with Dinnerjacket and the shaving razor deficient Akatsuki who stand behind him.

Again, What "agenda"?

I just said what agenda in my second last post:

"your theory that there is some grand scheme to attack Iran for nefarious purposes."

You already think Iraq was attacked for some nefarious purpose rather than poor intelligence mixed with the perfectly legitimate wish to depose Saddam. No war can be waged for a legitimate reason in your mind, there always has to be some grand conspiracy to make someone rich or to satisfy someone's blood lust. It's pretty sad that it leads you to support actual mass murderers like Ahmadinejad and his hordes.

[seanD]

Wanting to destroy other countries, for starters. Then there's the whole matter of sealing elections and murdering citizens who oppose it in the streets.

As opposed to actually destroying other countries for the past 100 years, including up to Iraq? lol

And what do their affairs have to do with us, or justify yet another military and finacial quagmire in the mid east, along with the potential repercussions from other nations that may ensue as a result that we can't predict?

I just said what agenda in my second last post:

"your theory that there is some grand scheme to attack Iran for nefarious purposes."

Well, since I just explained that I don't know what the reasons are behind the threats, and that there could be any number of reasons, you're claim that I have an agenda is false.

You already think Iraq was attacked for some nefarious purpose rather than poor intelligence mixed with the perfectly legitimate wish to depose Saddam. No war can be waged for a legitimate reason in your mind, there always has to be some grand conspiracy to make someone rich or to satisfy someone's blood lust. It's pretty sad that it leads you to support actual mass murderers like Ahmadinejad and his hordes.

Where did I make this claim about Iraq?

I said that the justification we used to invade Iraq was false intel. You think it was just poor intelligence. But I never gave the reason why I think we invaded, which is much like Iran -- I really don't know. So you're accusation is once again false.

[Darth Executor]

As opposed to actually destroying other countries for the past 100 years, including up to Iraq? lol

Which countries has the US destroyed? When was Iraq destroyed? Last I checked it's still there.

And what do their affairs have to do with us,

Nuclear wars affect everyone. Not to mention that the US has allies like Saudi Arabia on which it is dependent for oil.

And even if it had no effect on the US, direct or otherwise, it would still be the right thing to do.

or justify yet another military and finacial quagmire in the mid east, along with the potential repercussions from other nations that may ensue as a result that we can't predict?

If the US just bombs them instead of invading and insisting on leaving the place a democracy it won't be a problem.

Well, since I just explained that I don't know what the reasons are behind the threats, and that there could be any number of reasons, you're claim that I have an agenda is false.

Given that you're accusing people of outright lying to go kill people in the middle east it's safe to assume you think their reasons are nefarious, even if you don't know the specifics.

Where did I make this claim about Iraq?

They were examples of nefarious claims, I didn't say you made the claims. But given that "oil" and "they're psychos" are on your list of reasons for why you think they'll attack Iran, it can be reasonably extrapolated that they're near the top of your list for possible reasons here as well, so it's not like I'm tarnishing your sterling reputation in this matter by putting them on my list of examples.

I said that the justification we used to invade Iraq was false intel.

More specifically, you said it was invaded under false pretenses which is the same thing as saying they invaded iraq and lied about the reasons. By definition "false pretenses" means intentional deception. "False intent" is now a backpedal on your part since it leaves room for the possibility that the intel really was poor as opposed to your previous borderline slanderous hard line that even though you claim not to really know their reasons, they had to be bad ones.

[seanD]

Which countries has the US destroyed? When was Iraq destroyed? Last I checked it's still there.

Nuclear wars affect everyone. Not to mention that the US has allies like Saudi Arabia on which it is dependent for oil.

"Wanting to destroy other countries, for starters" -- in light of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the fact that we've been engaged in a war overseas each decade for the past 100 years, compared to the fact that Iran has been in one war during that timeframe and weren't even the provokers of that war.

I pointed that out, because the irony (or rhetoric, which ever one is appropriate) there is too absurd for even you to miss.

If the US just bombs them instead of invading and insisting on leaving the place a democracy it won't be a problem.

This is usually where the ability to reason and think logically comes into play, which gives us the ability to foresee the repercussions of an action.

If we bomb Iran -- overlooking how the Asian countries will react, something that isn't predictable -- at best, they will close the Straits of Hormuz, which will have devastating consequences to the already fractured-beyond-repair world economy, as the price of oil will spiral out of control. A ground campaign will ultimately be the only way to solve this problem.

They were examples of nefarious claims, I didn't say you made the claims. But given that "oil" and "they're psychos" are on your list of reasons for why you think they'll attack Iran, it can be reasonably extrapolated that they're near the top of your list for possible reasons here as well, so it's not like I'm tarnishing your sterling reputation in this matter by putting them on my list of examples.

And looking back at the history of the US, would those not be reasonable options to consider in the equation, or are you of the belief that the US is completely honest to its citizens and has this sterling moral standard it follows -- in spite of its overall godlessness -- and can do no wrong? A guy like Hannity, who engages in blatant US worship, would definitely agree with you -- except of course when the US is overrun by those evil liberals.

More specifically, you said it was invaded under false pretenses which is the same thing as saying they invaded iraq and lied about the reasons. By definition "false pretenses" means intentional deception. "False intent" is now a backpedal on your part since it leaves room for the possibility that the intel really was poor as opposed to your previous borderline slanderous hard line that even though you claim not to really know their reasons, they had to be bad ones.

No backpedaling at all. Yes, I agree that we invaded under false pretenses -- false intel, that was knowingly falsified by the perpetrators of said intel. If, from that, you can conclude that my position is that we invaded for nefarious reasons, even though I don't know why we invaded, then I'll grant you that.

[Darth Executor]

"Wanting to destroy other countries, for starters" -- in light of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the fact that we've been engaged in a war overseas each decade for the past 100 years, compared to the fact that Iran has been in one war during that timeframe and weren't even the provokers of war.

The irony (or rhetoric, which ever one is appropriate) there is too absurd for even you to miss.

Now you're backpedaling from "destroyed countries" to "waged war". I never asked when the US waged war, I already know the US has waged war in the past. I specifically asked about DESTROYING COUNTRIES. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not destroy countries, it was a tactic used to intimidate Japan into surrendering and saving even more lives in the long run. It was not an attempt to DESTROY Japan, which is a completely different thing.

This is usually where the ability to reason and think logically comes into play, which gives us the ability to foresee the repercussions of an action.

If we bomb Iran -- overlooking how the Asian countries will react, something that isn't predictable -- at best, they will close the Straits of Hormuz, which will have devastating consequences for the world economy, as the price of oil will spiral out of control. A ground campaign will ultimately be the only way to solve this problem.

Huh? Why is a ground campaign necessary from opening up a waterway? Aircraft can take care of naval vessels even easier than they can take care of ground troops because it's pretty hard to hide vessels in an open ocean. And I'm not sure which asian countries (other than China) will mind if we bomb Iran's nuclear production facilities. The only reason why China even cares about Iran is because they want Iran's oil. Heck, maybe we can work out a deal with them that will satisfy your need for ground troops and keep the whole thing cheap: have china provide the ground army (they need to kill off a few hundred million males anyway since they're rioting over the lack of women more or less) and in exchange we let them steal as much Iranian oil as they want.

And looking back at the history of the US, would those not be reasonable options to consider in the equation, or are you of the belief that the US is completely honest to its citizens and has this sterling moral standard it follows -- in spite of its overall godlessness -- and can do no wrong? A guy like Hannity, who engages in blatant US worship, would definitely agree with you -- accept of course when the US is run by those evil liberals.

The problem is that you only consider nefarious options. Anyway, some of them are not reasonable. Paranoia isn't one because Iran's leaders really are evil and crazy and have proved it over and over. Oil isn't one of them either because it's a lot cheaper to just negotiate a contract with dictators to buy it from them (US is doing that in Saudi Arabia already, though it's not the same thing because unlike Iran, the saudi dictators are better people than the general population)

[seanD]

Now you're backpedaling from "destroyed countries" to "waged war". I never asked when the US waged war, I already know the US has waged war in the past. I specifically asked about DESTROYING COUNTRIES. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not destroy countries, it was a tactic used to intimidate Japan into surrendering and saving even more lives in the long run. It was not an attempt to DESTROY Japan, which is a completely different thing.

Not backpedaling. I thought I made the timeframe clear in my last post...

As opposed to actually destroying other countries for the past 100 years, including up to Iraq? lol

Huh? Why is a ground campaign necessary from opening up a waterway? Aircraft can take care of naval vessels even easier than they can take care of ground troops because it's pretty hard to hide vessels in an open ocean. And I'm not sure which asian countries (other than China) will mind if we bomb Iran's nuclear production facilities. The only reason why China even cares about Iran is because they want Iran's oil. Heck, maybe we can work out a deal with them that will satisfy your need for ground troops and keep the whole thing cheap: have china provide the ground army (they need to kill off a few hundred million males anyway since they're rioting over the lack of women more or less) and in exchange we let them steal as much Iranian oil as they want.

That would be kind of hard to get that cooperation from China, considering the recent tensions between us and them -- the google affair, the Taiwanese affair, the Dalai Lama affair, etc -- but that's solely based on your knowledge of the current situation, in order to understand the situation fully. Being that you think the tensions between the US and the Brits is worse than the US and the Chinese... what can I say?

The problem is that you only consider nefarious options. Anyway, some of them are not reasonable. Paranoia isn't one because Iran's leaders really are evil and crazy and have proved it over and over. Oil isn't one of them either because it's a lot cheaper to just negotiate a contract with dictators to buy it from them (US is doing that in Saudi Arabia already, though it's not the same thing because unlike Iran, the saudi dictators are better people than the general population)

You keep throwing around the accusation of "evil and crazy," pretty loosely much like the fanatical neocons have been doing, who are beyond reason and fact. I'm not saying they are or aren't -- though you'll naturally accuse me of "defending them" because of my neutral stance. But I'm trying to find a factual justification for this accusation. Again, I compare the history of our country and their country -- of which we have continuously meddled in (operation AJAX ring a bell?) -- and I just don't see it, other than a bunch hyped fearmongering -- and other than what they do in their own country with their own citizens and one quote Ahmajinedad made in a speech about Israel (which might possibly even be a misquote anyway).

[seanD]

The US is not getting the cooperation it needs for sanctions...

http://www.raceforiran.com/clinton-s...iran-sanctions

Hilary believes that at least going through the motions will force Iran to willingly negotiate "in good faith." If you deprive a dog of food that you previously cornered and kept throwing sticks at, will that make the dog any nicer and manageable? Either she's completely dense on foreign relations and the behavior of these nations -- not willing to be bullied into submission -- or she's playing games just to appease the left dupes out there who think Obama is not as big of a warmonger like his conservative predecessor. So that when Iran is finally attacked, Obama can say: "see, we offered a peaceable solution."