wlsc 0 #51 April 29, 2012 ...Israel's former security chief has censured the country's "messianic" political leadership for talking up the prospects of a military stike on Iran's nuclear programme. In unusually candid comments set to ratchet up tensions over Iran at the top of Israel's political establishment, Yuval Diskin, who retired as head of the internal intelligence agency Shin Bet last year, said he had "no faith" in the abilities of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, to conduct a war. The pair, who are the foremost advocates of military action against Iran's nuclear programme, were "not fit to hold the steering wheel of power", Diskin told a meeting on Friday night. "My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war," he said. "I don't believe in either the prime minister or the defence minister. I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings. Believe me, I have observed them from up close ... They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. "They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won't have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race."... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #52 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote...The US navy announced the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the north Arabian Sea and the USS Enterprise, the world's longest naval vessel, in the Gulf of Aden. A senior official in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government threatened in January unspecified action if American aircraft carriers returned to the Persian Gulf, saying: "We are not in the habit of warning more than once". Although neither ship has entered the Gulf itself, the deployment will be seen as an unmistakable challenge... Carrier groups have been in and out of the gulf several times uneventfully since Iran made the threat as CVN-74 left in January. Do you know something I don't? ...An Israeli attack on Iran could occur in the crucial weeks leading up to the US presidential election this fall, according to a report from an Israeli newspaper. The paper, Maariv, a daily Hebrew language newspaper based in Tel Aviv, quotes anonymous officials who said that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has assured the United States that it would hold off on an attack on Iran until at least the fall. Netanyahu, however, would not promise US officials he would hold off on a strike until after the November elections, the article reports. Due to weather that would complicate air strikes in Iran, this gives Israel a small window of time to make an attack, and could result in such a bombing campaign occuring right before the elections... Well, I guess that answers my question. The people out there in media land, big and small, have certainly taken a liking to the role of amateur analyst regarding political and kinetic affairs in the Middle East and Northern Africa these days. I find it amusing how much contempt some profess to have for saber rattling on the part of nations while at the same time spewing all sorts about how close one side is to doing this or that, and how ruinous it will be for so and so, and going on and on with their brinkmanship nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #53 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote...The US navy announced the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the north Arabian Sea and the USS Enterprise, the world's longest naval vessel, in the Gulf of Aden. A senior official in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government threatened in January unspecified action if American aircraft carriers returned to the Persian Gulf, saying: "We are not in the habit of warning more than once". Although neither ship has entered the Gulf itself, the deployment will be seen as an unmistakable challenge... Carrier groups have been in and out of the gulf several times uneventfully since Iran made the threat as CVN-74 left in January. Do you know something I don't? ...An Israeli attack on Iran could occur in the crucial weeks leading up to the US presidential election this fall, according to a report from an Israeli newspaper. The paper, Maariv, a daily Hebrew language newspaper based in Tel Aviv, quotes anonymous officials who said that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has assured the United States that it would hold off on an attack on Iran until at least the fall. Netanyahu, however, would not promise US officials he would hold off on a strike until after the November elections, the article reports. Due to weather that would complicate air strikes in Iran, this gives Israel a small window of time to make an attack, and could result in such a bombing campaign occuring right before the elections... Well, I guess that answers my question. The people out there in media land, big and small, have certainly taken a liking to the role of amateur analyst regarding political and kinetic affairs in the Middle East and Northern Africa these days. I find it amusing how much contempt some profess to have for saber rattling on the part of nations while at the same time spewing all sorts about how close one side is to doing this or that, and how ruinous it will be for so and so, and going on and on with their brinkmanship nonsense. You'd think people would have learnt from Iraq. Brinkmanship there turned to War. Almost certainly the same will happen with Iran. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #54 April 30, 2012 Disagree re Iraq, DD. Brinkmanship was merely a pretext in that case. It is more the case re Iran though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #55 April 30, 2012 QuoteDisagree re Iraq, DD. Brinkmanship was merely a pretext in that case. It is more the case re Iran though. Iraq was required to do something it couldn't do - hand over its weapons of mass destruction. The same is now being done to Iran. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #56 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteDisagree re Iraq, DD. Brinkmanship was merely a pretext in that case. It is more the case re Iran though. Iraq was required to do something it couldn't do - hand over its weapons of mass destruction. The same is now being done to Iran. Why couldn't Iraq? Why can't Iran? You lost me.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #57 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteDisagree re Iraq, DD. Brinkmanship was merely a pretext in that case. It is more the case re Iran though. Iraq was required to do something it couldn't do - hand over its weapons of mass destruction. The same is now being done to Iran. Why couldn't Iraq? Why can't Iran? You lost me. Iraq didn't have any WMD to hand over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #58 April 30, 2012 Ah. Maybe we have different definitions of WMD, then. Do you count chemical agenst like mustard, VX and Sarin?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteDisagree re Iraq, DD. Brinkmanship was merely a pretext in that case. It is more the case re Iran though. Iraq was required to do something it couldn't do - hand over its weapons of mass destruction. The same is now being done to Iran. Hussein could have stepped down. Or he could have allowed inspections to occur without interference. These were requests he was not willing to satisfy, but it certainly was possible for him to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #60 April 30, 2012 QuoteAh. Maybe we have different definitions of WMD, then. Do you count chemical agenst like mustard, VX and Sarin? I thought I remembered something about Saddam sending those to Syria for safekeeping or just flat out burying and hiding the stuff."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #61 April 30, 2012 Figured that out all by yourself, did ya? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #62 April 30, 2012 I don't see it discussed much. The timeline appears to be: 1986-1989 - Iraq attempts genocied against Kurds, including use of chemical weapons (where Chemical Ali got his nickname) 1991 - UN oversees destruction of chemical weapons in Iraq, but admits they didn't get it all. 1998 - President Clinton orders airstrikes to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Iraq 2002 - UN and many others are estimating huge stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. Syria lobies on behalf of Iraq to allow Syria to sell Iraq more military equipment as Syria is building chemcial stockpiles itself. 2003 - Convoys of trucks flee Iraq for Syria prior to the US lead invasion of Iraq. After the invasion, nobody can find the chemical weapons in Iraq. Conclusion - There were never any chemical weapons in Iraq.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #63 April 30, 2012 QuoteI don't see it discussed much. The timeline appears to be: 1986-1989 - Iraq attempts genocied against Kurds, including use of chemical weapons (where Chemical Ali got his nickname) 1991 - UN oversees destruction of chemical weapons in Iraq, but admits they didn't get it all. 1998 - President Clinton orders airstrikes to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Iraq 2002 - UN and many others are estimating huge stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. Syria lobies on behalf of Iraq to allow Syria to sell Iraq more military equipment as Syria is building chemcial stockpiles itself. 2003 - Convoys of trucks flee Iraq for Syria prior to the US lead invasion of Iraq. After the invasion, nobody can find the chemical weapons in Iraq. Conclusion - There were never any chemical weapons in Iraq. The facts that we gave them the weapons, they used them , and they would not let inspectors in seems to be lost on many that bash Bush for the war. they may or may not have had them after we went in is not what is important, that we could not confirm the status of the weapons is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #64 May 1, 2012 ...The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war. Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995. "Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy." The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #65 May 1, 2012 I have no clue whether they had a secret program or not. As to whether they had weapons...clearly.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #66 May 1, 2012 But no WMD. Hence the War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #67 May 1, 2012 Okie doke. I now realize you don't count chemical weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction. That explains it. Many of us count those. Please join your regularly scheduled argument, already in progress.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abedy 0 #68 May 3, 2012 Quote "Lost" isn't exactly how I'd ever put it. The USSR was never at war with Afghanistan. There was a war against a certain faction of people in Afghanistan and by all accounts those people are now either dead or dispersed. That issue being over, it's simply time for the US Soviet Army to leave. FIFYThe sky is not the limit. The ground is. The Society of Skydiving Ducks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abedy 0 #69 May 3, 2012 Quote It's HIS tank, he can do whatever he wants with it. Actual line from a movie That one? There are actors you simply like. One of them is James Garner.The sky is not the limit. The ground is. The Society of Skydiving Ducks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
