|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
21 Former National Security Experts Say Bush Has Made Us Less Safe
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| 21 Former National Security Experts Say Bush Has Made Us Less Safe
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Ass Boil |
More experts reinforcing what we already know.
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...-news-a_section
Group Says Iran Is 'Not a Crisis'
Former generals and officials seek to prevent an attack on suspected nuclear sites and to overhaul policies toward Tehran and Baghdad.
By Peter Spiegel
Times Staff Writer
August 16, 2006
WASHINGTON — Seeking to counter the White House's depiction of its Middle East policies as crucial to the prevention of terrorist attacks at home, 21 former generals, diplomats and national security officials will release an open letter tomorrow arguing that the administration's "hard line" has actually undermined U.S. security.
The letter comes as President Bush has made a series of appearances and statements, including a visit Tuesday to the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., seeking to promote the administration's record on security issues in advance of November's midterm congressional elections.
The rhetoric has increased since last week's Democratic primary in Connecticut, in which antiwar political newcomer Ned Lamont defeated three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman to become the party's Senate candidate — a victory that senior administration officials are describing as a sign that Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.
Gard said the signatories — who included retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, head of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, and Morton H. Halperin, a senior State Department and National Security Council official during the Clinton administration — did not believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue.
"It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them."
He noted that Iran had sought to open negotiations with the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries, efforts that the letter-signers said were worth exploring as a means of defusing tensions in the region.
But Gard said the administration appeared to be going in the opposite direction, adding that he was particularly concerned by recent warnings from former Israeli military officials that a strike against Iran may be needed to disable that country's nuclear program.
He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments.
"This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said.
Organizers of the letter said the White House's recent efforts to belittle Democrats for seeking a timetable for withdrawing troops in Iraq may lead the signers to include criticism of the administration's Iraq policy.
The letter is expected to call for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy toward both Iran and Iraq.
|
|
|
|
| Ironpirate |
Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left.
pretty much sums up the article |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left.
pretty much sums up the article |
LOL The fake gangbanger returns. Just as stupid as ever....
Where have you been? At the Honeycomb Hideout? |
|
|
| Chocky |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
LOL The fake gangbanger returns. Just as stupid as ever....
Where have you been? At the Honeycomb Hideout? |
up Rush's anal crevice |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Chocky
up Rush's anal crevice |
Is he a "gangbanger" now? Nothin funnier than when farm-boys try to act ghetto.
So, now he has 2 misguided, fake, self-imposed identities he will never become -- conservative and gangbanger. LOL! |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Ass Boil,
The Administration has done everything with Iran that it can do. The U.S. worked with the International Community. Russia held talks with Iran and tried to get Iran in compliance with the NPT. There were talks with European's giving incentives trying to get Iran in compliance with the NPT. The U.S. encouraged all of those measures. The U.S. has acted proper in this situation. I don't see where anyone can complain of actions by the U.S..
Now a letter about nothing...
Iran has stated that nothing will stop their nuclear program.
Iran's violations have led to it's case being referred to the U.N. Security Council. They have set a deadline, then another deadline.
If one wishes to blame the U.S. what would be the complaint? We have done everything out in the open and it involves the complete cooperation of the International Community.
Though hard to believe the Iranian's had/have a hidden nuclear program. They refuse to divulge the details to the IAEA, the principle organization under the NPT Treaty. They have been found in breach of their safeguard agreements, in breach of their obligations of the NPT.
This hidden program is 18+ years old.
Why? Why have they had a hidden nuclear program for 18+ years? Why have they decieved the world?
One possible answer is to develop nuclear weapons that are unknown to the world and therefore if used no trail exists back to them. A strike on an enemy with deniability.
What should the response be from the world at this time? All talks have failed. They have stated that no compromise is possible. They will proceed and they will not divulge details of their hidden activities.
What to do?
I see no answer in the letter you posted. I see nothing there. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Ass Boil,
The Administration has done everything with Iran that it can do. The U.S. worked with the International Community. Russia held talks with Iran and tried to get Iran in compliance with the NPT. There were talks with European's giving incentives trying to get Iran in compliance with the NPT. The U.S. encouraged all of those measures. The U.S. has acted proper in this situation. I don't see where anyone can complain of actions by the U.S..
Now a letter about nothing...
Iran has stated that nothing will stop their nuclear program.
Iran's violations have led to it's case being referred to the U.N. Security Council. They have set a deadline, then another deadline.
If one wishes to blame the U.S. what would be the complaint? We have done everything out in the open and it involves the complete cooperation of the International Community.
Though hard to believe the Iranian's had/have a hidden nuclear program. They refuse to divulge the details to the IAEA, the principle organization under the NPT Treaty. They have been found in breach of their safeguard agreements, in breach of their obligations of the NPT.
This hidden program is 18+ years old.
Why? Why have they had a hidden nuclear program for 18+ years? Why have they decieved the world?
One possible answer is to develop nuclear weapons that are unknown to the world and therefore if used no trail exists back to them. A strike on an enemy with deniability.
What should the response be from the world at this time? All talks have failed. They have stated that no compromise is possible. They will proceed and they will not divulge details of their hidden activities.
What to do?
I see no answer in the letter you posted. I see nothing there. |
Hi Stonewall,
#1, the letter itself comes out today. It should be much more specific.
#2, I am not justifying the actions of Iran, but in 2003 IRAN approached the US, offering to make nearly all the concessions we wanted of them. The Bush administration brushed them off... So if Iran is up to something, why would the Bush administration be passing on opportunities to peacefully end those tensions? Who do you blame for that? Iran?
The Bush administration is doing their very best to turn this into a military conflict, rather than a diplomatic one. That is inexcusable. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
Is he a "gangbanger" now? Nothin funnier than when farm-boys try to act ghetto.
So, now he has 2 misguided, fake, self-imposed identities he will never become -- conservative and gangbanger. LOL! |
Yeah, he told us he was in a gang "when he was young"...
Funniest thing I've ever heard. I cowardly young republican who thinks he was in a gang. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
More experts reinforcing what we already know. |
Shouldn't this thread be titled '21 former left wing National Security experts'
Morton Halperin, Robert Gard??? :burst:
Why not post a letter on what sensible people think? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Shouldn't this thread be titled '21 former left wing National Security experts'
Morton Halperin, Robert Gard??? :burst:
Why not post a letter on what sensible people think? |
You are part of the "brilliant 33%", what would you know about "sensible"?
I noticed you didn't address anything to do with the subject of their letter. Why don't you care that Iran offered nearly all the concessions we asked of them back in 2003 and the Bush administration ignored them?
Maybe go ask a "sensible" person. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Shouldn't this thread be titled '21 former left wing National Security experts'
Morton Halperin, Robert Gard??? :burst:
Why not post a letter on what sensible people think? |
Well 62% of sensible people think you are in the 38% minority! |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left.
pretty much sums up the article |
christ - do you have a program that just automatically posts crap from rnc.org?
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Ass Boil,
The Administration has done everything with Iran that it can do. The U.S. worked with the International Community. Russia held talks with Iran and tried to get Iran in compliance with the NPT. There were talks with European's giving incentives trying to get Iran in compliance with the NPT. The U.S. encouraged all of those measures. The U.S. has acted proper in this situation. I don't see where anyone can complain of actions by the U.S..
Now a letter about nothing...
Iran has stated that nothing will stop their nuclear program.
Iran's violations have led to it's case being referred to the U.N. Security Council. They have set a deadline, then another deadline.
If one wishes to blame the U.S. what would be the complaint? We have done everything out in the open and it involves the complete cooperation of the International Community.
Though hard to believe the Iranian's had/have a hidden nuclear program. They refuse to divulge the details to the IAEA, the principle organization under the NPT Treaty. They have been found in breach of their safeguard agreements, in breach of their obligations of the NPT.
This hidden program is 18+ years old.
Why? Why have they had a hidden nuclear program for 18+ years? Why have they decieved the world?
One possible answer is to develop nuclear weapons that are unknown to the world and therefore if used no trail exists back to them. A strike on an enemy with deniability.
What should the response be from the world at this time? All talks have failed. They have stated that no compromise is possible. They will proceed and they will not divulge details of their hidden activities.
What to do?
I see no answer in the letter you posted. I see nothing there. |
The U.S. is not in compliance with the NPT - why should anyone else in the world follow any agreement or treaty when the U.S. does whatever it pleases? We're no longer an example for anyone |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Yeah, he told us he was in a gang "when he was young"...
Funniest thing I've ever heard. I cowardly young republican who thinks he was in a gang. |
Oh sorry, you must be a fucking warrior....... :p Im a coward, lol you got me |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You are part of the "brilliant 33%", what would you know about "sensible"?
I noticed you didn't address anything to do with the subject of their letter. Why don't you care that Iran offered nearly all the concessions we asked of them back in 2003 and the Bush administration ignored them?
Maybe go ask a "sensible" person. |
When you POST the actual letter, I certainly will comment on it. :)
What makes you trust Iran in the first place?..Ohh wait, thats right. Saddam is your model trust...nevermind. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
When you POST the actual letter, I certainly will comment on it. :)
What makes you trust Iran in the first place?..Ohh wait, thats right. Saddam is your model trust...nevermind. |
Hey dumbshit, you don't need to "trust" Iran to confirm they offered the concessions.
I'm sure that won't stop you from lying about it, though....
Wanna make some more excuses? This has been public knowledge for over a year and I have posted it for you more than once....
Quote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.
The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.
The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.
Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."
The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.
Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".
Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".
The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".
That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.
In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".
Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.
Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.
An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."
But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.
Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".
The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.
However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.
The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.
Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service
|
|
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Oh sorry, you must be a fucking warrior....... :p Im a coward, lol you got me |
but republican x-gang member? is that not ironic at all? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Oh sorry, you must be a fucking warrior....... :p Im a coward, lol you got me |
i'm not the one who said I was in a "gang". You said it as evidence that you are not the pussy we all know you to be.... Stop trying to change the subject.
Disappear again. Your reputation only gets worse any time you sit in front of your computer... |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
No response from Mikey, I guess the fact that Ronnie Regan was supporting Sadam in his war against the Iranians was too much to comprehend!
Hey wait a minute..........................................................................Lets blame it all on Clinton! |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Hi Stonewall,
#1, the letter itself comes out today. It should be much more specific.
#2, I am not justifying the actions of Iran, but in 2003 IRAN approached the US, offering to make nearly all the concessions we wanted of them. The Bush administration brushed them off... So if Iran is up to something, why would the Bush administration be passing on opportunities to peacefully end those tensions? Who do you blame for that? Iran?
The Bush administration is doing their very best to turn this into a military conflict, rather than a diplomatic one. That is inexcusable. |
Although it is possible Iran made certain proposals, that in itself is meaningless in regard to the IAEA and the NPT. There have been many proposals many negotiations. Iran announced agreements during the Russian negotiations and then backed away when the time came. They see a crisis happening, announce a possible breakthrough and as a giving in on their part, then once the crisis has passed nothing comes of it.
I don't see this administration turning this into a military conflict. They have worked through the international community in all steps. How do you justify your statement when the administration has done nothing militarily and the diplomatic route has been tried by all? The international community has bent over backwards to settle this with Iran. The U.S. has done this all by the book.
The regime in Iran has hidden things from the IAEA. Destroyed nuclear sites that the IAEA wanted to inspect. This is much greater than the U.S. vs. Iran. Iran is in breach of it's obligations under an international treaty. Iran was involved with the A.Q. Khan Network.
I do not know where this is leading. Sanctions probably. For the U.S. to take out these sites I have not heard a good argument that it would work considering we don't all the sites that exist. You can't hit what you don't know about. What is known, the known sites, are already under IAEA inspections. Hitting them would do nothing to stop their hidden program.
We are beginning to see the Democratic campaign develop. First there was the Letter concerning how America is unable to defend itself. Now comes this letter about how it's America's fault that Iran is in violation for 18+ years and Bush wants to strike Iran and has not fully used the diplomatic route. This flies in the face of reality.
This type of attack on the Administration is gonna backfire and the Blame America First Campaign is going to fail as it always has failed. This election is the Democrats for the taking and keep a very close eye on this campaign as it develops, in it are lessons on what not to do when the election is yours for the taking. You can look back and learn from it.
Oz,
Where has the U.S. been in non-compliance with the NPT? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
And?
Where is the U.S. violating the NPT? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Again, I do not see where the U.S. is violating the NPT. Your articles argue on the basis of if we do something then we will be violating the NPT. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Again, I do not see where the U.S. is violating the NPT. Your articles argue on the basis of if we do something then we will be violating the NPT. |
we are doing something - how did you completely miss that? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
we are doing something - how did you completely miss that? |
We are not violating the NPT.
The way the NPT works is this. A country signs on to the treaty, and the IAEA is the principle organization through which agreements are made and verification is made. Countries make safeguard agreements with the IAEA. You are then bound by these agreements.
A general rule exists of Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
A general rule exists to rid the world of Nuclear Weapons.
I understand that the process is horrible for the actual elimination worldwide of these weapons. There really is no process at all. The major powers do not trust each other nor do they trust countries like Iran, Pakistan, etc.. The Genie is out of the bottle.
To suggest that the United States is in violation, then everyone is in violation. China, Russia, France, Britain.
Really the NPT comes down to these safeguard agreements. If you join the NPT you are given help with your peaceful nuclear program. This is why Russia has helped Iran with reactors etc.. If a country does not sign the NPT they cannot recieve help from NPT member states.
If the world allows Iran to continue, in breach of the NPT, then the NPT is broken and the proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons will spread like a cancer across the globe. You will have the worst regimes access to all nuclear technology and without inspection or agreements.
This must be prevented at almost any cost.
It is one thing to not not join the NPT and stumble through a program, like Pakistan and India did. It is another thing to do what Iran has done which is to be granted all of the perks of NPT membership while all the time violating the NPT. If they succeed in their goal of breaking this treaty then nightmares will come true. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
We are not violating the NPT.
The way the NPT works is this. A country signs on to the treaty, and the IAEA is the principle organization through which agreements are made and verification is made. Countries make safeguard agreements with the IAEA. You are then bound by these agreements.
A general rule exists of Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
A general rule exists to rid the world of Nuclear Weapons.
I understand that the process is horrible for the actual elimination worldwide of these weapons. There really is no process at all. The major powers do not trust each other nor do they trust countries like Iran, Pakistan, etc.. The Genie is out of the bottle.
To suggest that the United States is in violation, then everyone is in violation. China, Russia, France, Britain.
Really the NPT comes down to these safeguard agreements. If you join the NPT you are given help with your peaceful nuclear program. This is why Russia has helped Iran with reactors etc.. If a country does not sign the NPT they cannot recieve help from NPT member states.
If the world allows Iran to continue, in breach of the NPT, then the NPT is broken and the proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons will spread like a cancer across the globe. You will have the worst regimes access to all nuclear technology and without inspection or agreements.
This must be prevented at almost any cost.
It is one thing to not not join the NPT and stumble through a program, like Pakistan and India did. It is another thing to do what Iran has done which is to be granted all of the perks of NPT membership while all the time violating the NPT. If they succeed in their goal of breaking this treaty then nightmares will come true. |
The way I read it is developing new nukes is in violation. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
The way I read it is developing new nukes is in violation. |
It would seem to me it at least would be violating the spirit of the Treaty. At least as much as we should understand it today. During the Cold War this treaty existed and we along with others created new nukes. Thousands of them. At least as they understood it when this was adopted I don't think it was a violation to create new nukes. It should have been. We actually signed treaties with the Soviet Union that set caps on the number of weapons, each time during the 1970's we did this the cap was always more than what we had and so we built up to that cap. A very strange situation.
Since the end of the Cold War, I do not believe we have developed new nukes. We have talked about developing new nukes. |
|
|
| chicagoirishtim |
| Of course, he created the worlds largest pool of terrorists in Iraq. Even george Will now see's this |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It would seem to me it at least would be violating the spirit of the Treaty. At least as much as we should understand it today. During the Cold War this treaty existed and we along with others created new nukes. Thousands of them. At least as they understood it when this was adopted I don't think it was a violation to create new nukes. It should have been. We actually signed treaties with the Soviet Union that set caps on the number of weapons, each time during the 1970's we did this the cap was always more than what we had and so we built up to that cap. A very strange situation.
Since the end of the Cold War, I do not believe we have developed new nukes. We have talked about developing new nukes. |
we have enough nukes to blow up the entire world like 700 times.
FW |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by chicagoirishtim
Of course, he created the worlds largest pool of terrorists in Iraq. Even george Will now see's this |
Saddam was a sponsor of terror. He incited terrorism. He incited Jihad against the U.S.. He had to go.
Of course one can argue the whole democracy thing. Perhaps the U.S. should have just invaded and destroyed the regime captured Saddam and just left Iraq. Leaving behind a situation where any leader could rise from the ashes and rule. That seems to be the current thinking in just walking away from Iraq.
The U.S. should maybe install al Sadr as leader and then declare victory and leave. |
|
|
| chicagoirishtim |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Saddam was a sponsor of terror. He incited terrorism. He incited Jihad against the U.S.. He had to go.
Of course one can argue the whole democracy thing. Perhaps the U.S. should have just invaded and destroyed the regime captured Saddam and just left Iraq. Leaving behind a situation where any leader could rise from the ashes and rule. That seems to be the current thinking in just walking away from Iraq.
The U.S. should maybe install al Sadr as leader and then declare victory and leave. |
uh...Saddam hated religion |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by chicagoirishtim
uh...Saddam hated religion |
He loved terror. He hated the U.S.. He incited Jihad. He incited terrorism against the U.S..
"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996
"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)
U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled) |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Although it is possible Iran made certain proposals, that in itself is meaningless in regard to the IAEA and the NPT. There have been many proposals many negotiations. Iran announced agreements during the Russian negotiations and then backed away when the time came. They see a crisis happening, announce a possible breakthrough and as a giving in on their part, then once the crisis has passed nothing comes of it.
I don't see this administration turning this into a military conflict. They have worked through the international community in all steps. How do you justify your statement when the administration has done nothing militarily and the diplomatic route has been tried by all? The international community has bent over backwards to settle this with Iran. The U.S. has done this all by the book.
The regime in Iran has hidden things from the IAEA. Destroyed nuclear sites that the IAEA wanted to inspect. This is much greater than the U.S. vs. Iran. Iran is in breach of it's obligations under an international treaty. Iran was involved with the A.Q. Khan Network.
I do not know where this is leading. Sanctions probably. For the U.S. to take out these sites I have not heard a good argument that it would work considering we don't all the sites that exist. You can't hit what you don't know about. What is known, the known sites, are already under IAEA inspections. Hitting them would do nothing to stop their hidden program.
We are beginning to see the Democratic campaign develop. First there was the Letter concerning how America is unable to defend itself. Now comes this letter about how it's America's fault that Iran is in violation for 18+ years and Bush wants to strike Iran and has not fully used the diplomatic route. This flies in the face of reality.
This type of attack on the Administration is gonna backfire and the Blame America First Campaign is going to fail as it always has failed. This election is the Democrats for the taking and keep a very close eye on this campaign as it develops, in it are lessons on what not to do when the election is yours for the taking. You can look back and learn from it.
Oz,
Where has the U.S. been in non-compliance with the NPT? |
How the hell can you say it is "meaningless" that the US virtually ignored offers from Iran that would have addressed nearly ALL the problems you are griping about now? Combine that with Bush's rhetoric on the issue and reports from inside the Pentagon that the neocon cabal ARE planning military action against Iran, and you have a group that CHOOSES war over possible peace. Of course there is no guarantee Iran would have followed through with their promises. But to ignore them completely will not solve a thing. And contrary to what you said in your post, the US has NOT been involved throughout the entire process. They deliberately stayed away and allowed the Europeans to deal with it, despite Iran's desire to include the US... |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Hey dumbshit, you don't need to "trust" Iran to confirm they offered the concessions.
I'm sure that won't stop you from lying about it, though....
Wanna make some more excuses? This has been public knowledge for over a year and I have posted it for you more than once.... |
Hey dimwit……you have to be able to TRUST Iran to be able to come into an agreement with them and even NEGOTIATE with them. What makes you trust them so? Before that you must simply look past years of supporting terrorists, repressing their own people, and look past all the American blood on their hands via terrorist attacks….then you have to be able to develop some kind of trust in them. To someone like you who seems to trust any murdering dictatorial regime it appears easy. When you are in the real world and things really matter, its not so simple.
Anyway, where is the link of this 2 page document from Iran?? If this was rejected by the administration, why will it not be shown for public view?? Can you get a link to it and post it, if not, please explain why it remains hidden.? This is not really the 'smoking gun' that you want it to be. It appears to be just a small part of the story. Notwithstanding the issues I have outlined above, which are quite a hurdle to overcome, we are supposed to believe that Iran was going to essentially give up everything just for US recognition and lifting of sanctions?? I would like to know exactly what sanctions are in place because they must be pretty hefty. Does that sound plausible to you? Or might there be more to the story. Why isn't Iran making this known publicly today?
Before you declare your smoking gun….maybe you can get the rest of the story.
And it is worth noting that the author is an antiwar left winger. He is a member of an outfit called Foreign policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/ . I found this gem on their website…it pretty much says all you need to know:
| Quote: We believe U.S. security and world stability are best advanced through a commitment to peace, justice and environmental protection as well as economic, political, and social rights. We advocate that diplomatic solutions, global cooperation, and grassroots participation guide foreign policy |
. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Yeah AB , go ahead and post it, so Mikey can deny it with some brilliant cut and paste fromn a Bushbot Reich Wing site! |
|
|
| sternowitz |
| Let it be known that anyone with a towel on his or her head is a target |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It would seem to me it at least would be violating the spirit of the Treaty. At least as much as we should understand it today. During the Cold War this treaty existed and we along with others created new nukes. Thousands of them. At least as they understood it when this was adopted I don't think it was a violation to create new nukes. It should have been. We actually signed treaties with the Soviet Union that set caps on the number of weapons, each time during the 1970's we did this the cap was always more than what we had and so we built up to that cap. A very strange situation.
Since the end of the Cold War, I do not believe we have developed new nukes. We have talked about developing new nukes. |
I will give you it violates the spirit - I also believe exploration and discussion thereof made public is an aggressive move |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
How the hell can you say it is "meaningless" that the US virtually ignored offers from Iran that would have addressed nearly ALL the problems you are griping about now? Combine that with Bush's rhetoric on the issue and reports from inside the Pentagon that the neocon cabal ARE planning military action against Iran, and you have a group that CHOOSES war over possible peace. Of course there is no guarantee Iran would have followed through with their promises. But to ignore them completely will not solve a thing. And contrary to what you said in your post, the US has NOT been involved throughout the entire process. They deliberately stayed away and allowed the Europeans to deal with it, despite Iran's desire to include the US... |
It would be a good time to link to that offer, if you have a link.
The U.S. had thrown full support behind the European talks and the Russian talks. They were involved behind the scenes.
Provide a link to this "desire" of Iran wanting to include the U.S. in these talks.
Why would Iran not comply with the NPT? That is the issue, you do realize that all these negotiations are trying to get Iran to provide the IAEA with what it wants, and bring Iran back into compliance with the NPT. If Iran would abide by it's own safeguard agreements with the IAEA then this issue is over. They could end it tomorrow. Today even. It has nothing to do with the U.S. per se.
The Administrations rhetoric is because Iran was busted with a hidden nuclear program. One that had been hidden for 18+ years. Under this Administration this program came to light.
When do we begin to blame Iran? Why is this the fault of the U.S.? We are not in violation of our safeguard agreements with the IAEA. |
|
|
|
|
|
