Iran's nuclear intentions?
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 05:49
VIEWED: 2528
PAGE 2 of 3
Actually, imma top that, having recently read an excellent piece by Ray McGovern, I think, involving how our supposed intel agencies run over even presidents cause no one seems to have the balls to stop them.
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/122209McGovern.shtml
Case in point, as McGovern has dug up for us, a 1963 editorial written by Truman himself, which was only printed in the early edition as the CIA forced the paper to pull it within minutes of hearing about it.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman%27s%20CIA%20article.h
tml
So it really does beg the question of who is REALLY in charge, when they can make demands of, and ignore orders from, our supposed highest authority.
And just how many subpeanos is the USDOJ currently laughing off, hmm ?
I already had my say on that, and still think that the CinC is well within his right to order military action against them assholes at Langley if they don't toe the line, cause they're to my mind more dangerous terrorists and a greater threat to our nation and it's people than any other.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Which faults and abuse do you refer to ?
Iran's...
Quote:
lets look at a West - Iran timeline to see why Iran may feel some hostility towards the West
You can't blame all of the faults and abuses of Iran's government on the West's past behaviour.
Quote:
Iran has a unique system of government, but even with its faults is much more democratic than Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt
Keep thinking about it, reading up, and watching the news. You might arrive at a moment of clarity where you see elements in Iran's regime and society that are just as or even more ugly than what you hate the U.S for.
You take the side of anyone if it's against the U.S, even if the U.S has the rest of the international community on its side and you are defending an international pariah. Hence 'George Galloway Syndrome'.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Which faults and abuse do you refer to ?
Iran's...Quote:
lets look at a West - Iran timeline to see why Iran may feel some hostility towards the West
You can't blame all of the faults and abuses of Iran's government on the West's past behaviour.Quote:
Iran has a unique system of government, but even with its faults is much more democratic than Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt
Keep thinking about it, reading up, and watching the news. You might arrive at a moment of clarity where you see elements in Iran's regime and society that are just as or even more ugly than what you hate the U.S for.
You take the side of anyone if it's against the U.S, even if the U.S has the rest of the international community on its side and you are defending an international pariah. Hence 'George Galloway Syndrome'.
Heads should roll
What I am saying is years of misguided US foreign policy has created this situation, as well as many others which make up this current mess.
If world peace is going to happen, I submit the first change which need to happen are with that US foreign policy,
Now point out the specific faults you are finding so wrong to justify this policy,
The history of US intervention in Iran alone would justify the desire for a nuclear deterrent, not to mention they have Israel, Pakistan, and India to content with... ( all nuclear powers )
I have pointed out their system is much more democratic that the primary US allies in the region, despite efforts to subvert and overthrow that government. The current demonstrations and unrest are another example as any similar demonstrations are banned and all participants subject to arrest in Saudi Arabia, and are highly restricted in Egypt
Iran has problems yes, but any actions taken by the US has made those problem worse... Show me an example otherwise.
Or do you feel the US has the right to step in and change any society they have issue with... ( actually pick and choose by society and not by issue as their close allies seem to consistently have worse records with the same issues )
You seem to be calling me biased because I disagree with you, prove me wrong
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, imma top that, having recently read an excellent piece by Ray McGovern, I think, involving how our supposed intel agencies run over even presidents cause no one seems to have the balls to stop them.
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/122209McGovern.shtml
Case in point, as McGovern has dug up for us, a 1963 editorial written by Truman himself, which was only printed in the early edition as the CIA forced the paper to pull it within minutes of hearing about it.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman%27s%20CIA%20article.h
tml
So it really does beg the question of who is REALLY in charge, when they can make demands of, and ignore orders from, our supposed highest authority.
And just how many subpeanos is the USDOJ currently laughing off, hmm ?
I already had my say on that, and still think that the CinC is well within his right to order military action against them assholes at Langley if they don't toe the line, cause they're to my mind more dangerous terrorists and a greater threat to our nation and it's people than any other.
-F
Here is something... sort of related
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/20101518713383498.h
tml
US spies in Afghanistan 'ignorant'
A senior US military intelligence official in Afghanistan has lambasted Washington's spy networks calling them ignorant of the situation in the country.
Major General Michael Flynn, the deputy chief of staff for intelligence for the US and its Nato allies in Afghanistan, said in a report on Tuesday that the intelligence services were out of touch with the Afghan people.
In the report published by the think-tank the Centre for New American Security, Flynn said that the intelligence community had been only "marginally relevant to the overall strategy" in Afghanistan since the war began eight years ago.
He said that US intelligence officials in the country were "ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced ... and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers
continues
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now point out the specific faults you are finding so wrong to justify this policy
The UN policy of opposition to a nuclear Iran? It's justified by the fact that a nuclear-armed Iran would be dangerous and destabilising to the region and the world, possibly triggering a whole middle-eastern arms race and just generally dealing another blow to the movement for nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation.
Quote:
The history of US intervention in Iran alone would justify the desire for a nuclear deterrent, not to mention they have Israel, Pakistan, and India to content with... ( all nuclear powers )
So are you happy to see a nuclear-armed Iran? Or do you *want* to see a nuclear-armed Iran? Are you happy to see a civilian nuclear programme in Iran, and trust them to be entirely peaceful about it?
Because being cynical about Western nuclear arsenals/track record on world peace is one thing, but actively championing the nuclear rights of a country with an ugly regime like Iran's is another matter.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by KPO:
Or of loving Iran just for hating the U.S, and being willing to overlook all of Iran's faults and abuses, even those far worse than the U.S's. George Galloway Syndrome.
By the same token, couldn't it be said of you that you love the U.S. JUST FOR hating Iran, and are willing to overlook all of America's faults and abuses, even those far worse than Iran's?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Now point out the specific faults you are finding so wrong to justify this policy
The UN policy of opposition to a nuclear Iran? It's justified by the fact that a nuclear-armed Iran would be dangerous and destabilising to the region and the world, possibly triggering a whole middle-eastern arms race and just generally dealing another blow to the movement for nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation.Quote:
The history of US intervention in Iran alone would justify the desire for a nuclear deterrent, not to mention they have Israel, Pakistan, and India to content with... ( all nuclear powers )
So are you happy to see a nuclear-armed Iran? Or do you *want* to see a nuclear-armed Iran? Are you happy to see a civilian nuclear programme in Iran, and trust them to be entirely peaceful about it?
Because being cynical about Western nuclear arsenals/track record on world peace is one thing, but actively championing the nuclear rights of a country with an ugly regime like Iran's is another matter.
Heads should roll
Hell the US was happy about it when a despot like the Shah was running Iran...
Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz were all involved in trying to sell them US reactors
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2067
and your calling them an ugly regime ?
they are fairly democratic next to the principal US allies in the area...
I would argue the constant US attacks on Iran have been " dangerous and destabilising to the region and the world "
" and trust them to be entirely peaceful about it? "
Haven't seen them start any wars in the last... century is it? I'd have to say I'd trust them more than Pakistan, India or Israel.
and now as the US is loosing its economic power, soon we will see how other countrys really feel...
How much do you know about Iran and it's people ?
I'm more than cynical about anything coming from the UN lately, many think of it as a US puppet body, and many of their actions would prove that right.
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
By the same token, couldn't it be said of you that you love the U.S. JUST FOR hating Iran, and are willing to overlook all of America's faults and abuses, even those far worse than Iran's?
Nah, because my backing US attempts to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not equivalent to Gino backing Iran's attempts to *acquire* nuclear weapons.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz were all involved in trying to sell them US reactors
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2067
and your calling them an ugly regime ?
I don't trust your source to provide reliable facts/analysis. Any more mainstream news providers (or less agenda-driven) reports on this?
Quote:
they are fairly democratic next to the principal US allies in the area...
You'll notice I've stayed clear of this argument, mainly because none of those US allies are pursuing nuclear programmes. I would be just as alarmed if some of them did (like Yemen).
Quote:
I'd have to say I'd trust them more than Pakistan, India or Israel.
And as for these countries that already have nuclear weapons, this can't be easily undone. The best way to redeem a bad situation is not to forget about non-proliferation and suggest 'nuclear weapons for all', as if this will make the world better.
Quote:
How much do you know about Iran and it's people ?
A basic knowledge of the history, and the country's workings.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...my backing US attempts to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not equivalent to Gino backing Iran's attempts to *acquire* nuclear weapons.
That's a cute tactic, but it's a false equivalency. Saying that you can understand why Iran might WANT nuclear weapons, and that they have some legitimate historical gripes with the U.S., *IS NOT THE SAME* as saying that you really, really, really want Iran to have nuclear weapons because you just love them so very much and want to cuddle with them.
I can honestly say that I can understand some of Osama bin Laden's gripes with the U.S., and that doesn't make me an ally of his, an admirer of his, a Muslim, or any kind of terrorist. It just means that I can understand more than one side of an argument.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME