Iran Super Thread- Merged

[couchcommander]

As for Couchcommander's last post; I hope it does sound familiar, since the end result is also being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan; newly minted consensual governments, emerging structures for the rule of law and the growth of free market economies.

In determining the particulars of a crime, two elements play significantly, those being actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus), literally, guilty action, and mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), guilty mind. With this concept, the same action, depending on the intent of the person, can be construed as two completely different things, for example the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Thus, the intent of a state in undertaking a hostile action must be considered, and this intent will distinguish particular actions from others. For example, a state attacking another which had knowingly, and beyond a reasonable doubt harboured individuals and organizations directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own citizens, for the reason of mitigating this threat, is a vastly different action than attacking a state with a very thin layer of evidence supporting the former position, and really for the primary reason of preserving ones own hegemony.

Should the United States undertake hostile action against Iran, as they did against Iraq, it is not the facade of reasons we have been exposed to by western media we must consider when determining whether or not their actions were justified or moral, it is their true intent. Whether or not the US is overthrowing a horrible tyrant or oligarchy is irrelevant, it was not their intent in undertaking the action. These articles are meant to shine a light on this intent, and expose that it is far from a compassionate nation building exercise, but a deliberate attempt to ensure their continued dominance. Whether or not you find this reprehensible, is entirely up to you.

 

[meni0n]

So Iran sponsoring terrorism, calling for destruction of other countries ( Israel ) and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons is not reason enough?

 

[couchcommander]

So Iran sponsoring terrorism, calling for destruction of other countries ( Israel ) and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons is not reason enough?

The articles are meant bring to question whether or not any of these are indeed their primary motivation. As I said in the post, whether or not you find the true motivations, whetever you decide them to be, ethical or not is a decision only you can make for yourself.

 

[Nemo888]

Didn't we put Saddam in power to prevent the creation of a Shia Arab superpower? Why did we get rid of him, unless the demise of Iran was already planned?

 

[a_majoor]

As the mountains of documents from Iraq are translated, a picture first painted by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and articulated by George W Bush is coming back into view. This is, of course the picture of an aggressive regime determined to use WMD and support for terrorism as the asymmetrical means of breaking out from the Allied imposed restrictions post 1991. (Somehow I don't see the MSM rushing out to report these findings).

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316&view=1

Issues & Insights
Declassified Truth

Posted 3/16/2006

The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.

In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.

Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.

As we've reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam's regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn't be detected. And he had plans to make more.

Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam's terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam's spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.

Here, for instance, are the marching orders for Directorate 8, the Mukhabarat's "Technical Affairs" department: "The Eight Directorate is responsible for development of materials needed for covert offensive operations. It contains advanced laboratories for testing and production of weapons, poisons and explosives."

It goes on. Directorate 9, we discover, "is one of the most important directorates in the Mukhabarat. Most of its work is outside Iraq in coordination with other directorates, focusing on operations of sabotage and assassination."

The document also discusses the Mukhabarat's Office 16, set up to train "agents for clandestine operations abroad." The document helpfully adds that "special six-week courses in the use of of terror techniques are provided at a camp in Radwaniyhah."

Got that? Terror techniques.

Follow the link and read the rest.

The United States dealt with a clear and present danger in Ba'athist Iraq, and since political pressure hasn't reduced the danger of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, I think it is safe to say they will deal with the  demonstrable short term danger to the West, rather than worry about fairly nebulous currency exchange dangers. Since the EU has a per capita GDP about 25% below that of the United States (despite having a larger land, resource and population base), a stagnant economy and is facing a demographic crunch in 25 or so years, I don't think smart investors are going to be running to invest in Euros. A true reserve currency needs to offer long term stability, not the prospect of a meltdown waiting due to a demographic crisis when the 30 year bonds come due.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Should the United States undertake hostile action against Iran, as they did against Iraq, it is not the facade of reasons we have been exposed to by western media we must consider when determining whether or not their actions were justified or moral, it is their true intent. Whether or not the US is overthrowing a horrible tyrant or oligarchy is irrelevant, it was not their intent in undertaking the action. These articles are meant to shine a light on this intent, and expose that it is far from a compassionate nation building exercise, but a deliberate attempt to ensure their continued dominance. Whether or not you find this reprehensible, is entirely up to you.

So it was GW Bush and the western media that have created false video of the Iranian president and all of his threats?  Wow.  Those sneaky war-mongers! Someone should put a live camera on that guy so he can say what he really means instead of being misquoted by the capitalist slave Zionist media. 
What?  Oh?  He was live?
Thennnnnn, he, uh, was being drugged, NO, controlled by HYPNOTIC PREDATOR DRONES!  For God sake, somebody make a tin foil turban for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before it is too late and we end up in a war that only the United States wants!  See, look at this, they are doing it again:

Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran would not give up its nuclear rights.

“Today we announce with pride that the peaceful knowledge and technology are at our disposal in order to be used for different purposes, including electricity generation, and we have not borrowed it from anybody that can take it away from us,” he said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060320-1618-iran-nuclear-president.html

Geez, it's only a veiled threat.  And it's an Arab country.  They are all about the veils, you ethnocentric electricity hater.

 

[couchcommander]

On the threats against other nations front, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/">the US is not innocent on this count either</a>, you ethnocentric electricity hater (I like that one). I hardly think the pissing match gives us reason to invade either of them.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

On the threats against other nations front, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/">the US is not innocent on this count either</a>, you ethnocentric electricity hater (I like that one). I hardly think the pissing match gives us reason to invade either of them.

I'm all about the rambling metaphor. 

The difference is that threatening a country to not pursue a nuclear weapons program is pretty okay in my books.  If they are so burning to have nuclear power, then do it the right way and have the International Atomic Energy Agency overseeing it like everyone else. 
Oil, blah blah blah.  I have every belief that at such time as oil does not suit the American interests, there will be a flurry of "discoveries" (actually releasing of buried technology) that render oil obsolete.  It will be a massive shift in the world dynamic, but ultimately it will likely be the United States that spear heads it.  In the mean  time, do we really need another country with nuclear weapon capabilities?

 

[couchcommander]

In the mean  time, do we really need another country with nuclear weapon capabilities?

No, but I haven't seen any proof that they have nuclear weapons capabilities either...do I need to remind everyone of the last time we believed what the US was saying in this regard? Besides.... NK would be a better choice if we are going after countries for this reason.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

No, but I haven't seen any proof that they have nuclear weapons capabilities either...do I need to remind everyone of the last time we believed what the US was saying in this regard? Besides.... NK would be a better choice if we are going after countries for this reason.

I think promising to push Israel back into the sea is a good enough reason to doubt their intent with the technology.  Just because they are not yet nuclear capable doesn't mean we should sit idle and let them.  Korea is a perfect example of how not doing anything allowed a freaky little Elvis wannabe dictator to wield a really big stick. 
Plus, I would rather see our allies going after theocratic zealots that are seeking the technology.  If you go after NK, then you may just get to see one of their nukes get tossed out and used.  At least with Iran a nice 48 hour hail of cruise missiles would sort out who is bluffing who. 
I also consider that these leaders in the middle east seem to have a real need to hear their own voices on television and need to sound tough to their people.  I remember one Iraqi dictator who used to talk pretty tough until he was playing sewer rat.  One would think that experience would let them know what is a good bluff and what is not.  If the US calls Iran's bluff, Iran is going to be in a bad way.  I think Iran is counting on the US military being stretched thin right now and figures it can pull some "shout at the bully from half a block away" and then at the last second say "okay, never mind.  Send in the inspectors".  I think the days of cat and mouse semi compliance with UN rules is coming to an end.  Unfortunately, there is only one country that seems intent on holding some of these bumblehumps to an accounting. 
And it ain't France.

 

[tomahawk6]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1176995,00.html

Charles Krauthammer on the threat of hyperproliferation.
The Iranians will leave us with just two choices - do nothing or strike them hard. The article shows what the world could be like in the event we do nothing.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

From the linked article from Tomahawk:

It is not just that its President says crazy things about the Holocaust. It is that he is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'être is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?

Good enough for me.  Where's the LOD?

 

[couchcommander]

Always amusing.

I too, would agree, that world leaders who control WMD thinking about the apocalyspe is a bad thing. Unforunately, Ahmadinejad <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/030812vanimpe.html">isn't the only one</a>. In fact <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y">this other guy</a> claims to be getting his orders directly from the big man.... scary IMO.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

From the last article.

My point would be, I suppose, that I support removing any tyrannical or insane leader... for the reason of removing a tyrannical or insane leader (and of course we must decide whether this will actually bring about any more stability or peace). Once again, however, it seems to me that this is far from the US's true intentions.

And regardless, as I said before, if we are going after people for this reason, I can think of a number of better targets than Iran.

And once again, it cannot be proven that they have or are actively (currently) pursuing nuclear weapons. Past experience dictates that we cannot trust what the US is saying in this regard, so I will wait until an independant agency confirms it (*waits for the same "Well you can wait, but when you get nuked you'll be sorry" response I got re: Iraq*)  I'm reminded of the saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Seriously, JACK VAN IMPE?!?! 
Couchcommander, you are not so couch bound that you believe everything you read on the internet, are you?  I have some real problems with taking third hand accounts of what someone "thinks" George Bush is saying.  GWB has never made any bones about being a Christian, so if he referred to having "prayed to make a right decision" that is not the same as "God came to my security briefing and gave me a flaming sword to carve up Mesopotamia".  If the man didn't say it on camera, or in print, take it with a grain of salt.  Bush hating is very fashionable. 
Besides, no one is talking regime change in Iran (Yet).  They just need to have their nuclear program shut down before it is too late.  It's not like they are saying "we only want a few more kilowatts, what is the harm".  They are making definite threats to Israel, and anyone else who provokes their displeasure. 
Ultimatum, deadline, last chance, Tomahawk storm.  Short and sweet.

 

[couchcommander]

I have some real problems with taking third hand accounts of what someone "thinks" George Bush Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying. 

lol, my point was (there really needs to be a sarcasm font or something) exactly that. I don't believe either, and I would advise viewing what the western media spouts out with the same skepticism that you have towards a reputable Israeli newspaper.

And as I have said, as far as can be reasonably assumed at this point, their only nuclear program is peaceful.

However... as long as we are not talking about regime change (ie large scale operation... several hundred thousand civilians dead)... then ok, I'm definitely in for the discussion.

I actually have nothing against targetted surgical strikes, or a policy of containment. In fact I think i've advocated it before.

For me, the fact that they are being so aggressive in their posture would in fact warrant the latter. And if with further investigation it can be demonstrated that there is a will, even if they are not actively pursuing it, for a nuclear device, I would indeed have a hard time arguing against strikes against enrichment facilities.

However, care should be taken as this is likely to further inflame and generate radical Islamic movements (as it seems that many Muslims identify very strongly with their religion, beyond even national boundaries, (a position I have come to accept after some...livey debate), and further that we risk pushing people in their arms who previously didn't due to the fact we have simply killed their loved ones, ruined their livelihood, etc.) ... in the end we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth it. 

 

[a_majoor]

The amount of evidence that Iran has been promoting attacks against Western interests is fairly long and detailed, dating back to the American Embassy takeover in 1979, the "tanker war" in the 1980s to their quite open support of vicious terrorist movements like Hezbollah and Hamas to the present.

Like Iraq under the Ba'athist regime, past actions are a very good indicator of what to expect, so if they are making open threats to acquire and use nuclear weapons, then it would be very short sighted NOT to take them at their word. As for "evidence" that Iran is persuing "peaceful" nuclear power; the fact that the Iranian people were unaware of the nuclear program for many years would seem to indicate there was something less than above board about it.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

lol, my point was (there really needs to be a sarcasm font or something) exactly that. I don't believe either, and I would advise viewing what the western media spouts out with the same skepticism that you have towards a reputable Israeli newspaper.

I whine about a [sarcasm] icon all the time
How can we believe any media from any source completely?  They are all so easy to manipulate and all seem to have some sort of agenda.  I think one should keep an open mind, view multiple information sources and also consider the countries past actions. 

And as I have said, as far as can be reasonably assumed at this point, their only nuclear program is peaceful.

I don't agree.  From their actions and words, we should not assume anything in that country these days is peaceful.  If they really are looking for another power source, they should have no problem allowing UN inspectors to monitor their activities.  It is their actions and words that make the monitoring necessary, so if they want to cry about "it's our country, it's not your business" then the shouldn't have been so quick to go back to war-threat Israel bashing. 

However... as long as we are not talking about regime change (ie large scale operation... several hundred thousand civilians dead)... then ok, I'm definitely in for the discussion.
I actually have nothing against targetted surgical strikes, or a policy of containment. In fact I think i've advocated it before.
For me, the fact that they are being so aggressive in their posture would in fact warrant the latter. And if with further investigation it can be demonstrated that there is a will, even if they are not actively pursuing it, for a nuclear device, I would indeed have a hard time arguing against strikes against enrichment facilities

Oh, cripes, forget about regime change.  I can't even imagine what a drawn out cluster hump that would be.  I seem to recall that was one of the reasons that Iraq was an attractive target, because of the relatively low level of religious fervor.  I realize it looks a lot like there is religious battles going on, but in reality the insurgency is just using religion as a herald, and the real problem is politics, coupled with a lot of non-native button pushing on the part of Al Qaeda.  Kind of like Norther Ireland.  Catholic vs. Protestant really doesn't have much to do with what was going on.  More like Irish poor underclass (catholic) vs rich, small British ruling class (Prod). 

However, care should be taken as this is likely to further inflame and generate radical Islamic movements (as it seems that many Muslims identify very strongly with their religion, beyond even national boundaries, (a position I have come to accept after some...livey debate), and further that we risk pushing people in their arms who previously didn't due to the fact we have simply killed their loved ones, ruined their livelihood, etc.) ... in the end we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth it. 

Come on!  That concession-ish talk is what led to 9-11.  For years the radical Islamic threat had been identified, but it was always "well, if you attack them, you just make them martyrs and make it worse".  We are past the "placate and ignore" phase.  This is a shooting war, and the shitrats need to be hunted down and exterminated.  It is us or them, and there will be no happy medium.  Here is some food for thought.
This is an excerpt from the introduction portion of an actual Al Qaeda training manual:

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate
PRESENTATION
To those champions who avowed the truth day and night ...
... And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases
...
-*- The confrontation that we are calling for with the
apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates ..., Platonic
ideals ..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the
dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and
destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
*** ...
Islamic governments have never and will never be established
through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are
established as they [always] have been
by pen and gun
by word and bullet
by tongue and teeth

I don't see these guys sitting down in a nice board room in the Hague and chit chatting about religious freedoms.  They are dedicated to the eradication of our society.  They see it as their absolute duty to Allah to wipe all traces of the western world from existence, or die trying. 

Me, I'm all for helping them out with the "or die trying" part.  :akimbo:

 

[xander]

Great article by Seymour Hersh, the same journalist that broke the Abu Graib scandal. The article talks about US military options against Iran including tactical nukes and how a war with Iran may play out. I'm not able to post the article because it is over the maximum characters allowed so here is the link to the New Yorker article.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

 

[tomahawk6]

Hersh is a communist and very anti-military.

 

[Cliff]

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

So what, it's no mystery that SF teams are conducting SR and working with the locals in Iran (no different than the early stages of Afghanistan and the NA). The tactical nukes seems like a bit of a stretch, even for comrade Hersh