Iran Threatens to Hit Israel and U.S. Bases

Originally posted by discordantone

In case you forgot about the run up to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq

The same Iraq who had used chemical weapons against it's own people in the 80's, and threatened to use them again against the West and Israel in the 90's and after 2001?

Yes, "unprovoked".

(...)even if Iran allowed the inspectors in and even if the inspectors come back saying all is well with Iran, the government of the USA would not listen.

How can you possibly know that? It was Iran who didn't listen what the West, UN and IAEA had to say to them. And they still refuse to listen. That's why they are eating sanctions now.

Just like they blew off Hans Blix and started an illegal war of aggression with Iraq despite the facts. After seeing what happened to their next door neighbour, Iran has every right to be distrustful.

Which facts are you referring to?

Iran has every right to distrust whoever they want, but the moment they sign a piece of paper saying they will follow certain rules and certain directives, they should comply with what they agree.

They were the ones who decided to join the NPT and the IAEA, and they were just fine when they needed the West help to produce their own nuclear technology.

It seems that they are the victims when they don't need the IAEA anymore.

That should make people suspicious of Iran.

Originally posted by Drezden
People on here are in a perpetual state of denial about the U.S.'s own covert activities.

Fallacy...

Many here, Myself included have never denied or sidestepped US/West involvement in the mess, What is apparent are those members who refuse to acknowledge Iran has just as much on their plate and are not the innocent victims as many attempt poorly to portray them as and convey by regurgitating the same old line of bull.

we gave weapons and our blessing to Iraq to invade Iran in an unprovoked war which cost the lives of thousands of Iranian civilians.

Is this why in every single photo of the Iran/Iraq war we see Iraq fighting with nothing but Soviet/Russian equipment? No, I'm not denying the US had a hand in it but those are exactly the types of blanket statements that ignores historical contributing factors such as the ENTIRE Cold War and it's implication in the situation of the period.

I'm sorry I'm not into a watered down one sided view of history.
Call it down the middle or don't bother at all.

The same Iraq who had used chemical weapons against it's own people in the 80's, and threatened to use them again against the West and Israel in the 90's and after 2001?

Yes, "unprovoked".

This was not the stated reason for the invasion. Iraq was not the agressor in the 2nd Gulf War, it was an unprovoked invasion simple as that.

This line about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his own people is pure retrospective reasoning & has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the US invaded.

double post

reply to post by marker3221

This was not the stated reason for the invasion. Iraq was not the agressor in the 2nd Gulf War, it was an unprovoked invasion simple as that.

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Source

Like I previously stated, the intelligence linking Iraq with WMD's was amateur at best, and based on rumors. People at the time saw what they wanted to see, clearly. Especially Colin Powel's review of the evidence.

However, the reason why it was so easy to believe Iraq had those alleged WMD's was Iraq's own actions in the past, where they did use that kind of weapons.

This line about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his own people is pure retrospective reasoning & has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the US invaded.

I completely disagree.

Past actions give context to the possibility of a country using weapons they shouldn't have in the first place. Iraq used those weapons, and it could use them again.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

If you honestly believe this was the reason, well I don't know what to say to you.

7 months before 9/11 Colin Powell had this to say:

Colin Powell

Which we now know to be an accurate picture of how Iraq was in 2001.

But all that suddenly changed in a week after 9/11, according to General Wesley Clark:

Wesley Clarke

But if you wish to carry on believing what they tell you, there is no point in us talking any further.

All the best.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


They were told to stop enrichment, there is no proof they have ever enriched beyond 20 percent which has non nuclear uses. It takes 90 percent to use as a weapon. That's a farcry. Also Russia, who actually helps with their facilities says they aren't making weapons. Russia is the same as the US when it comes to not wanting anymore nuclear powers. Russia themselves have said Iran isn't trying to build a nuke. Hell even Israel has said at times that Iran isn't trying to build a nuke.

I read about it too, but I don't only read biased sources. If you honestly read unbiased sources you would not be so certain. You have to see that this is no different then what got us into Iraq. What would EVER make you think that Iran is going to attack anyone. You sincerely think they would get a nuke and then hand over hundreds of millions of dollars of effort and decades of work to some terrorist group that could use it against them? I really just don't see a justifiable threat and I am not the only one it seems that most intelligent politicians agree. The only ones that seem to want to go after Iran are the neocons with Israeli ties/interests.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


LOL and it's not possible that people with certain interests are not seeing what they want to see in Iran now? If you pay attention to what you read, the suspicious areas are where they think Iran carried out tests over a decade ago. That makes for a good excuse with people interested in bombing Iran, but it's not viable evidence that they are currently seeking to build nukes or even build the capability.

reply to post by marker3221

If you honestly believe this was the reason, well I don't know what to say to you.

Excuse me?

You said:

This was not the stated reason for the invasion.

I replied with the quote:

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

You said that the reasons stated at the time had nothing to do with WMD's. You were incorrect.

If you don't like people correcting you, don't make incorrect statements.

Which we now know to be an accurate picture of how Iraq was in 2001.

And that's why I said this:

Like I previously stated, the intelligence linking Iraq with WMD's was amateur at best, and based on rumors. People at the time saw what they wanted to see, clearly. Especially Colin Powel's review of the evidence.

That quote comes from the post you are replying to, by the way.

But if you wish to carry on believing what they tell you, there is no point in us talking any further.

Don't dance around accusations. If you want to debate, put your arguments forward. If not, don't point fingers at me for not agreeing with you on all aspects.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

You said that the reasons stated at the time had nothing to do with WMD's. You were incorrect.

No, I did not.

You said:

The same Iraq who had used chemical weapons against it's own people in the 80's, and threatened to use them again against the West and Israel in the 90's and after 2001?

Yes, "unprovoked".

I replied:

This was not the stated reason for the invasion. Iraq was not the agressor in the 2nd Gulf War, it was an unprovoked invasion simple as that.

Now, if you can point out to me where I said the stated reasons had nothing to do with WMD's I'd be most grateful, I was referring specifically to the events you mentioned. Even your own quote:

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Did not mention any of the points in your original statement. So please, don't be putting words in my mouth.

If not, don't point fingers at me for not agreeing with you on all aspects

I think you're a bit paranoid to boot. There was no finger pointing going on, in fact I was quite cordial at the end so I don't know where you're getting that from.

reply to post by marker3221


I'm sorry, but I don't like running in circles, debating the same points over and over again.

If you think there was a misunderstanding, I apologize in advance. However, it's also your responsibility to explain your arguments clearly.

My point is well explained in other posts, so I don't feel the need to continue this off-topic argument.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Well, Iran could cover Israel with radioactive waste. But not much more. To get dust to blow in Judea, they need something more potent. So, where can they get the actual nuclear warhead? And have they acquired one already?

They've had time, to get a deal in place for getting these with Chinese assistance (and bargain price on oil) from North-Korea, or from late USSR bases in the unknown ranges of far-east, with help from ideological opponents for Shiitism, but partners against Israel. Or get Pak intelligence service to have few of those loaded on the wrong side of the border.

So, they really do not need to bake yellow cakes, when region has had quite nice opportunities for getting ready-to-use devices.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

I'm sorry, but I don't like running in circles, debating the same points over and over again.

Neither do I, but in fairness that is not what I was doing. I was correcting your misquoting / misinterpreting of my post.

If you think there was a misunderstanding, I apologize in advance. However, it's also your responsibility to explain your arguments clearly.

I fail to see what was unclear, there isn't that much to it as laid out above. Regardless, apology accepted.

I don't feel the need to continue this off-topic argument.

If that is how you have viewed it, fair enough. I haven't taken this exchange to be an argument at all. But you are right, it is off topic so we'll leave it there.

All the best.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

They were told to stop enrichment, there is no proof they have ever enriched beyond 20 percent which has non nuclear uses.

How far they have enriched it is irrelevant. The Security Council order was to halt all enrichment. They disobeyed that order.

The irony in this is that the Security Council wasn't forbidding Iran from enriching their own uranium. They were merely asking them to stop it, until they could figure out clearly what were the objectives of the program.

It was Iran who decided and contributed mostly to this ongoing situation of a nuclear standoff.

Also Russia, who actually helps with their facilities says they aren't making weapons.

Russia isn't helping Iran out of good will and friendship. They are helping Iran as much as any other IAEA member. And the Russian help you mention, actually comes through the IAEA, since all nuclear technology and materials transactions are regulated by the IAEA itself.

And a lot of organizations are saying that Iran isn't making nuclear weapons. Including western.

Russia themselves have said Iran isn't trying to build a nuke. Hell even Israel has said at times that Iran isn't trying to build a nuke.

Israel (Mossad) and the US (CIA) have stated Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and quite possibly, isn't doing any active research that would give them the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

However, like I stated multiple times, Iran needs to obey the commitments agreed in the NPT and IAEA treaties. If we make an exception for Iran, we will have to make an exception to all countries, and then the NPT and the IAEA become irrelevant.

I read about it too, but I don't only read biased sources. If you honestly read unbiased sources you would not be so certain.

Which sources are you referring to?

You have to see that this is no different then what got us into Iraq.

Actually, it is.

In the Iraq war of 2003, the U.S. had a primordial interest going there, even if that interest was manipulated by the government and is now known to be false, according to a CIA report released in 2005.

With Iran, the U.S. has a secondary interest - or obligation - that only connects them to the problem because of Israel's concerns.

Israel was able to deal with similar issues in the past, on their own. Syria had nuclear facilities that were disabled by Israeli air-strikes, and the world didn't end from that, and a WW3 didn't start because of it. The U.S. is involved now because Israel is asking us to be involved.

Very different scenarios, in my opinion.

What would EVER make you think that Iran is going to attack anyone.

Like I've showed previously in this thread, Iran is accomplice in some Middle East conflicts, and has been a part of the conflicts for decades. I don't understand why people label Iran as innocent when we constantly hear people complain about how nasty the US foreign policy is because of all the proxy wars.

If those proxy wars and operations are so important to paint the US and Israel as terrorists, why don't people take seriously the involvement of Iran?

When a country has the bravery to attack and provoke another country, I might disagree with the conflict or the causes, but at least there is a degree of transparency in those actions. Iran, however, masks their true intentions with proxy groups. That, I cannot trust.

You sincerely think they would get a nuke and then hand over hundreds of millions of dollars of effort and decades of work to some terrorist group that could use it against them?

I don't know. That's why I don't want anyone to take the risk of finding out the hard way.

I really just don't see a justifiable threat and I am not the only one it seems that most intelligent politicians agree. The only ones that seem to want to go after Iran are the neocons with Israeli ties/interests.

I see a plausible threat. But that is not the same as giving my agreement to an attack, or full-scale war.

I prefer to deal with all this in a negotiations table, and that's why I constantly urge people to support the diplomatic option, and educate them-selfs on the nature and objectives of the IAEA and the purpose of the NPT.

The objectives of both organizations are based on nuclear energy and security from nuclear weapons for the whole world. Iran should embrace it and be a part of it, instead of constantly making a joke of the organizations who have the credibility to label them as a safe nuclear state.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd sure have to disagree on this point and as one of the BIGGEST misunderstandings and flat out misjudgments of this coming war. I'm not sure if you meant 'longer' in the historic sense or not, but places like Iraq literally had a history that spanned decades as a spin off of the Ottoman Empire.

I suggest you re-read my post. We are discussing modern government intelligence agencies who participate in covert subversive missions. The U.S. is by far the world champion of this. We aren't discussing ancient history of the persian empire.

reply to post by kat2684


Here in my town on the Oregon Coast gas is $4.05, least that is what is was the other day.

I am so sick of hearing about the middle east in the news. Can't they just give it a break and stop the squabbling? Iran this Israel that just shut up!

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Is this why in every single photo of the Iran/Iraq war we see Iraq fighting with nothing but Soviet/Russian equipment? No, I'm not denying the US had a hand in it but those are exactly the types of blanket statements that ignores historical contributing factors such as the ENTIRE Cold War and it's implication in the situation of the period.

You say some intelligent things, and then you say some ridiculous things that ignore the well documented facts of history. The U.S. government directly facilitated the sale of weapons to Iraq.

"The United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

- Howard Teicher,

This is only what the government is willing to admit, we know there is a lot more to the support, but most of the files are still classified.

The U.S. government uses secrecy as the rule when interfering in other country's affairs, obviously they didn't want it to be so clear as selling U.S. made weapons to Iraq. The U.S. did however directly sell radar, computers, aircraft navigation to Iraq.. as well as giving them tactical advice ON the battlefield.

The U.S. was aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons, and even after hearing of Iraq using chemical weapons on the kurds we did not stop supporting them. That is absolutely disgusting.

Not only that, but the U.S. delivered bio-weapon research materials to Iraq.

"U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record." - Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored Riegel report

Over a million people died in that war, including tens of thousands of Iranian civilians. The U.S. is very much responsible for those deaths.

Please explain what Iran did to deserve any of this? Why haven't you acknowledged the fact that the CIA over-threw Iran's democracy, placing a dictator in charge, and starting the conflict between the U.S. and Iran?

The U.S. government has been doing this all over the world. Over-throwing governments, supporting dictators and brutal leaders.. all for the sake of access to their resources. In the middle east, South America, Asia.

Oh my....some very interesting debates going on in this thread, some history, some baloney.

All I can ask is, since WHEN have we become so desensitized to war that we will engage in a full-on assault based on perceived threats??? My God, to read some of the posts here, they are basically arguments as to why it is okay to completely destroy a country based on what we assume they are going to do. Pre-emptive war? WTF is that?? An invasion to a country who has not harmed us.

I am not an Israeli citizen, so I cannot speak from that viewpoint, but as an American who has two daughters and two sons-in-law in the military, I vehemently resent the idea that we will get dragged into another miserable quagmire of a war in the middle east, based on insane rhetoric and outright lies.

One of my daughters (step) was there at the beginning of the Iraq war, and has had 4 tours of duty over there. She said they were all pumped up, and pumped full of lies, as to why they had to go over there, destroy a country and remove a "dangerous dictator". After Saddam was removed and the country was destroyed, she assumed it was mission accomplished, and time to go home.

Soon, all of them started to see that it had nothing to do with Saddam, and bringing democracy. Then she started, along with the others in her unit, to become disillusioned and angry. Well, 9 years later and we're still there, and in Afghanistan, and FOR WHAT???

We're still there, thousands of American kids killed and maimed, tens of thousands of innocent victims over there (collateral damage, they call it) killed and maimed, our national identity is now one of aggression, greed, murder, lies and SHAME, and there are those of us beating the war drums to assist Israel in attacking Iran.

I cannot believe what I'm reading. Sick, sad world, full of deluded people who are armchair warriors but don't know the first thing about how evil war truly is.

The "Balkanization" of the middle east is currently underway. I beg of you all, please read "Which Path To Persia", www.brookings.edu... Written by the Brookings Institute in 2009, it basically lays out the best way to take them down.

I'm pretty sure that Iranian leadership has also read this document, and is reacting out of fear, as they should, because their demise is in black and white, and we are following from this play book.

I'm also sure there will be posters who will flame me for being naive. However, unlike the US and Israel, I will refrain from attacking pre-emptively. I come from a position of national pride, and I am ashamed and aghast that we would choose to rush into yet another war, just because Israel pulls the strings.

May all of you who are arguing for war be faced with it one day, where you're right in the middle of it and you're burying members of your family, and your friends, and your entire world is destroyed. Think about it.

Considering what transpired in 1953 when we murdered Irans prime minister....and set up the Shah of Iran.....
The iranians have been on the recieving end of all kinds of pressures from the west.
I must say, they are handling the situation masterfully......almost impeccably considering the array of doom they are facing....
It wouldnt be surprising that OUR continued pressure has caused them to change their atomic policies, and ironically go all out for a bomb even for deterrent value....(its a long ways from a bomb to putting it into an intercontinental missile......)
Though they have few available delivery systems that stand a chance of a successful strike, just having the weapon may be appealing to them emotionally.....
. The longer we wait to strike.....the less chance of successfully eliminating the Irani sites.
The fear i have is that the anti air missiles iran employs are secretly augmented by other unknown systems , covertly supplied by either ally, Russia, or China,.....
The next worry i have is neighbouring Pakistan.......