U.S. Lacking Intelligence On Iran

posted by subz
This has nothing to do with my feelings towards the nations that comprise the UNSC. This also has nothing to do with my feelings towards Iran either. An injustice is an injustice as far as I am concerned.

So on the one hand, the nation's that comprise the UNSC are unjust, but you have no feeling's about them. A bit contradictory IMO. Although it fit's with your logic that the 'Zionist Regime' can be eliminated without bothering Israel.

Originally posted by Pyros
Semantics. And irrelevant as well, as Israel is a recognized sovereign nation. And the "Zionist regime" just happens to be their democratically elected government, which represents all people who reside in Israel. An attack on Israel or its government is an attack on the Israeli people and society. One does not "wipe Israel off the map" without wiping out the Israeli (both Jew and Gentile) society. That is what's at stake. A democrat, pluralistic, and capitalist society embedded in a region dominated by radical, intolerant Islam. A tiny country amidst a vast array of larger, more populous nations ruled by dictators and potentates.

I'm disappointed that you're still using the term "wipe Israel off the map". This has been demonstrated to be a mistranlation from the Israeli think-tank MEMRI, which is trying to foment hatred of Iran (and doing a pretty good job, it has to be said).

Ahmedinejad was calling for regime change. It's true that Israel is more democratic than, say, Iraq (the last candidate for regime change) but they also follow policies of apartheid, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and racial superiority. These policies - eerily reminiscent of the Nazis' - are directed against the Palestinians. I would argue that the US should be using its clout with Israel to secure some sort of decent deal for the Palestinians rather than enforcing Israel's right to dominate the region.

We should also distinguish between countries, like the US, which have the military might to enforce regime change, and those that do not. Israel has 200 nukes or thereabouts. That means that any regional country going up against them is going to get annihilated.

Were it the US instead of Israel, we would have obliterated the Iranians long ago, after considering the long list of hostile acts committed against us.

Let's not forget that the US overthrew the democratically-elected regime of President Mossadegh and installed a monarchy, training an equipping a secret police so vicious that they made the KGB look like a bunch of Girl Scouts. That is something the Iranians certainly haven't forgotten. The US embassy in Teheran was known to the locals as "the nest of spies".

Now, listen to this. People who grew up during the Cold War know this fact to be true: Nuclear weapons, in any form, are so inherrently dangerous that they cannot be permitted into the hands of those who would even consider for one moment the actual use of these weapons.

Oh dear. That's a worry, because the US now has a first strike policy and it's such a worry that many prominent scientists, including five Nobel laureates, have written to Bush to protest about it.

I think it's also relevant that Iraq is absolutely littered with Depleted Uranium dust, which causes many serious illnesses and horrific birth defects.

The US (which is understandably very nervous about terrorists attacking its own nuclear facilities or setting off "dirty bombs") is pretty sanguine about polluting other countries with nuclear residue that has a half-life in the billions of years, and about bombing other countries' nuclear plants.

Originally posted by RedGolem
Yes there was that Protocol, but look at the dates on the previous posts. Isreal was being atacked by the Egyptian fighters in 1955. It was 1956 that they began launching there own atacks, then october and the protocol came.

The fighting back of Isreal, in this case, was not unprovoked.

Fine, I obviously cannot assuage you of that belief. But just ask yourself this, why the need for a Protocol such as this? And why the need for secrecy?

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
So on the one hand, the nation's that comprise the UNSC are unjust, but you have no feeling's about them. A bit contradictory IMO.

Hardly, I never said I had "no feelings" for those countries. I said this has "nothing to do with" my feelings. Is it too much to ask for you to read what I write correctly before starting to psycho-analyze me?

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Although it fit's with your logic that the 'Zionist Regime' can be eliminated without bothering Israel.

How so? The Hussein regime was removed completely and Iraq is still there. Are you trying to tell me regime change is possible against Muslim countries, but not against a Jewish one? Now that would fit with your logic, IMO.

posted by subz
How so? The Hussein regime was removed completely and Iraq is still there. Are you trying to tell me regime change is possible against Muslim countries, but not against a Jewish one? Now that would fit with your logic, IMO.

Do you know what a Representative Democracy is?

There IS a DIFFERENCE between dictator's and government's that are popularly ELECTED by their people. That's my logic.

Originally posted by subz
Fine, I obviously cannot assuage you of that belief. But just ask yourself this, why the need for a Protocol such as this? And why the need for secrecy?

Subz,
As to the need for the Protocol I would need to see transcripts from the meeting that was had when the Protocol was derived. Transcripts meaning what was being discused with exsplanations to the why, for and how come. Same for the need for secrecy. Generaly speaking all things dealing with military action such as that secrecy is invalved.

I would suspect most countries in the world have similar Protocols.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Do you know what a Representative Democracy is?

There IS a DIFFERENCE between dictator's and government's that are popularly ELECTED by their people. That's my logic.

Whats that got to do with regime change being an attack on an entire people, as you claim removing the zionist regime would to all Israelis?

Iran has a democratically elected government and it is openly being subverted by the United States through it's financial support of dissidents and exiles. How would the United States react to Iran financing domestic groups that wanted to overthrow the United States government? Also look at Venezuela, Chavez was democratically elected and still the United States tries to remove him.

The United States government openly supports regime change in both those countries who have a democratically elected government. Does that mean the United States wishes to kill all Iranians and Venezuelans because they want regime change? If so, according to you, the United States regime needs changing itself. If not, then Iran's stance for regime change is as legitimate as those of the United States against a multitude of other democratically elected governments.

posted by subz
Whats that got to do with regime change being an attack on an entire people, as you claim removing the zionist regime would to all Israelis?

Ah, let's see, Representative's Represent their people, who put them in office. This would mean that the Representative's are doing what the people want, or they wouldn't get elected.

Therefore, taking out those representative's will only bring about the replacement of those representative's by the same people who voted them in, in the first place! They might even vote in a more hawkish representative who will defend them better.

So, it doesn't seem that regime change in a LEGITIMATE democracy make's any sense. That would be done at the ballot box.

And if you think Venezuela & Iran had legitimate election's, I got a flyin' pig for sale!

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
And if you think Venezuela & Iran had legitimate election's, I got a flyin' pig for sale!

I suppose proof is too much to ask for.

I seriously doubt you're looking for proof.

One weapon against such fraud is the exit poll. As Doug Schoen of Penn Schoen points out, his firm has conducted exit polls in Mexico and, just a few days ago, in the Dominican Republic, which produced results very close to the election results. His partner Mark Penn points out that the firm conducted two previous exit polls in Venezuela, both of which were on the mark. Warren Mitofsky's firm, Mitofsky International, has produced exit polls with similar results in Mexico and Russia. Mitofsky recalls that in 1994, Mexican President Carlos Salinas, seeking credibility with foreign investors for that year's Mexican elections, asked him for advice on what to do. Allow independent exit polls, Mitofsky advised, sponsored by the media, and allow the results to be announced soon after the voting. Mitofsky's exit poll results, announced soon after the polls closed, did in fact come close to the official results, as did another Mitofsky poll in 2000. More important, they provided independent confirmation of the fairness of the count.

www.usnews.com...

Iran’s Interior Ministry placed voter-turnout at 62 percent, a figure previously “predicted” by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while the Iranian opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), having unofficial monitors at 15,000 polling stations across the country, put voter-turnout at about 10 percent.

www.iranfocus.com...

If you're going to stake your opinion of the elections in question on exit polls, then you have to doubt the US's 2004 election results, as multiple exit polls showed a discrepancy with the actual election results: IE, according to exit polls, Kerry won.

Never said either way. Are you agreeing with exit poll validity?

It wouldn't shock me particularly if Chavez supporters threw the recall election, Chavez is hardly the dire threat the US paints him as, on the other hand he's certainly a demagouge.

On the other hand, the Iranian election seems to have been fair, at least as Iranian elections go: IE most reformers got disqualified before the election, but Ahmadinejad clearly won among the approved candidates.

As far as the US 2004 election goes: I have my suspicions...

Exit polling is one way to check results, but I dont think it is truely reliable.
That is why I liked the papper trail, there was always something to check. Unforchantly now we are going with the electronic devices, now there will be the real fraudlent election results.

Exit polling is one way to check results, but I dont think it is truely reliable.
That is why I liked the papper trail, there was always something to check. Unforchantly now we are going with the electronic devices, now there will be the real fraudlent election results.

Agreed, technology seem's to be outpacing our ability to build in safeguard's. Be it weapon's, or voting. Kinda remind's me of a child with a gun. All that power without the maturity required to wield it. Dangerous!

Theres a lot u dont know , Im in intel ask and Ill tell what I can only. So ask!

Iran IS!!!! going to nuke Is. With that said we think it will be this year for sure and in Sept.????? pretty sure, but it is going down!

Originally posted by greg _rinchich
Theres a lot u dont know , Im in intel ask and Ill tell what I can only. So ask!

As long as we stick to the topic please.

Originally posted by greg _rinchich
Theres a lot u dont know , Im in intel ask and Ill tell what I can only. So ask!

Greg,
Ok so what is the good intell, and where is the intell lacking when it comes to Iran?