quote:Mr. Bush noted in a brief Oval Office meeting with reporters that the Central Intelligence Agency had found "no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of Sept.11," but he said "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved."
Intelligence officials have said emphatically that while Iran's Muslim fundamentalist leaders appeared to have offered a transit point to some of the Sept. 11 terrorists and other Qaeda members, there was nothing to indicate that Iran knew in advance about the plot.
quote:The evidence about an Iran-Qaeda tie contrasts sharply with what the Sept. 11 commission staff has concluded is a dearth of intelligence showing a working relationship between Iraq and the terror network, a judgment that has alarmed the White House since it appears to undermine a central justification of last year's invasion of Iraq.
Government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the commission's report would offer extensive new evidence to show that Iran had provided logistical support over the years to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.
Most alarmingly, they said, the commission recently obtained intelligence showing that Iran had allowed as many as 10 of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks to pass through border stations in late 1990 and early 1991 without having their passports stamped, making it easier for them to enter the United States without raising suspicions.
quote:He also said: "I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it's a totalitarian society where free people are not allowed to, you know, exercise their rights as human beings." He said, "This has been an issue that I have been concerned about ever since I've been the president."
As soon as i saw the headline to this article my stomach hit the floor. this sounds disturbingly similar to the publicity leading up to the iraq thing. first a few statements about the possiblity of a problem, then a steady escalation until war is inevitable.
in any case, the article seems to hint that iran had a lot more to do with 9/11 and support for terrorists than iraq ever did, but we're now basically stuck in iraq and have practically no ability to pursue other conflicts which could be of greater benefit to our security. did someone get their middle easern countries mixed up? i know it's just one letter's difference, but my goodness...
i don't know, it's probably nothing but it makes me nervous
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that going to be the next reason we really went to war in Iraq---"Its my fake Texas accent. I meant Iran and silly Rumsfeld thought I said Iraq. Heck, they are the ones with the Al Kay-duh connection, and the ones building Nuc-you-leer weapons. Nobody told me we went into the wrong country until today."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This definately does concern me. I certainly hope it is not bad foreboding. I have close friends here who are originally from Iran, and all their family is there. I would hate to see a war begin in that country.
posted
I don't mind him eyeing iran, i mean if you're going to invade a country iran seems like a better choice than iraq; iraq was at least under control. i just think it's too bad that we've gotten ourselves in a situation where we have no real choices as to what we do (unless we start drafting people of course). if iran is a serious problem, there's really nothing we can do about it.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is that consideration - the US Army is spread so thinly between Afghanistan and Iraq, we simply can't muster the forces necessary for any meaningful military action in Iran.
And given our track record in Iraq, a three-front battle would be a bad, bad idea.
posted
1)North Korea is cold. Our troops have not invested in costly cold weather gear, and Haliburton doesn't sell it.
2) NOrth Korea has mountains which are difficult for our tanks to cross. Iran is smooth and easy to cross.
3) North Korea has no money. Iran has oil that it can sell to pay us back for the invasion.
4) North Korea is surrounded by big trading partner China, who would not like our troops so close. Iran is surrounded by Afghanistan and Iraq, which already have our troops there.
5) If NK gets the bomb, they will launch it at SK or Japan, both allies of ours, but really have the gall to be filled with CEO's that compete with our auto-makers and buy oil we could get cheaper without them, so their loss would be our gain. If Iran got the bomb they'd lob it at Isreal, which is our ally, but not really an economic competitor. It is a market for our goods. We don't want to lose that market.
by the way, can you tell I'm in a nasty mood today?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well for one the Iranians would fight back, the Iraqis know about that. That and yes it would be stupid to invade Iran, but not because it would be a three front war, which it really isn't. We have maybe a brigade worth of soldiers in Afghanistan? Plus they could always hope that Iraq would have calmed down a great bit. Though I would no compucture against fighting the Iranians I don't think it would be in our best interest or anyone elses except maybe the extremists.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
We would roll over Iran in much the same fashion we did Iraq. Any formal resistance would be squashed in short order.
The guerilla war once major fighting was over could and probably would last for as long as we chose to try and stay there. There aren't many ways to quash guerilla resistance and all of the ones I can think of would turn the stomachs of most people. Say what you will about Saddam, he knew how to keep people suppressed.
By comparison, we would have to throw massive amounts of resources into any Korean conflict and still not be assured of any kind of victory. And it would most certainly be a bloodbath the likes of which we have not experienced in recent memory.
By comparison, while we are suffering losses in Irag and Afghanistan, it would not be on the same scale.
As to the long term consequences of a military invasion of Iran - I believe they are far, far too costly to counter any possible gains to be made.
Not to mention, I'm not sure what the hell we'd do with the country after taking it. Install a western Democracy in a country or a region that neither wants nor welcomes such an institution?
posted
Actually there are many people in Iran who would welcome a more Western styled democratic government. Unfortunately the religious leaders don't want that to happen.
While I doubt a US invasion would happen any time soon, I do not doubt a US aided democratic movement in Iran would be a great thing.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just as many who don't. While large numbers of people may silently welcome and applaud the US actions in Iraq, they don't raise their voices in support - from fear of reprisals by the more enthusiastic groups that want a theocracy.
If they can't step forward and risk their lives to take and make a government work, we have no business trying. It's like giving your beagle a set of car keys.
He'll give you a puzzled look and probably bury them - but he won't drive himself to the store and pick up dinner.
posted
Invading the theocracy of Iran would garner us even more enemies (if that is possible) from the Islam front. Iraq was, if I recall, one of the last secular middle eastern governments. We basically replaced a dictatorship with a...er...militarily enforced "government" currently ruling under martial law. Attack a wholly religious country? Yikes. Bush won't...they are calling up retired and discharged soldiers as we speak to help in Iraq...who in Allah's name would we have to do in Iran? Nope, our warmongering days lately began with Afganistan and ended with Iraq. Until we can pull out of Iraq (like when the oil runs dry there) we aren't going to be in any position to enforce our ideas with guns and ammo.
posted
Please remember that Iran was a democratic country more than half a century ago. The reason it isn't any longer is that the U.S. and Britain decided to topple that democratic government to replace it with a dictator (the Shah) who would sell them the oil for cheap.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And just as many who don't. While large numbers of people may silently welcome and applaud the US actions in Iraq, they don't raise their voices in support - from fear of reprisals by the more enthusiastic groups that want a theocracy.
Can you prove that? Considering that Iran was a far less theocratic state before the Iyatollahs, there is at least precedence that the people would welcome a change back to the way things were before the clerical leaders took control.
quote:If they can't step forward and risk their lives to take and make a government work, we have no business trying. It's like giving your beagle a set of car keys.
Funny, the same could have been said for Iraq, but we went anyway.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm waiting for the Bush administration to find an Al-Qaeda connection with Britian. Then, we could have a celebrity death match instead of war. BUSH vs BLAIR! An unintelligible goof-ball with a fake texan accent vs the suave, debonair, but admittedly weak wristed leader of the almost free world! Oh, the DRAMA! By god, it would be a satisfying brawl. Of course, France is more likely to fall into that hot seat.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the first, no I can't. But I am happy to avoid another potential quagmire with this possible outcome then I am to gamble on the subsequent generation of young men having grown up believing America to be the great Satan, plus rabble-rousing from more determined insurgents.
As for the second - I'm not the one who made that decision. I would have been with swooping, breaking stuff and when the UN started making noise about requiring them to legitimize a government, turning the mess over to them to build a government.
Bush's eyes were bigger than his stomach. And his notion was, to this outsider's perspective, ill-formed and not particularly well thought out on an operational level.
And Fil - I made similar observations about being stretched too thinly earlier.
posted
Iran needs a regime change, and I actually think that there is a more sympathetic population. I need to read more about specific human rights violations, but I just don't understand the rationale. If it's a fear of terrorists, why aren't we doing something about Saudi Arabia, if it's a human right's issue, why isn't there talk about picking up the gauntlet in the Sudan?
posted
Irami, the Sudan situation is something I feel that we, the US, need to push much harder on in the UN.
If there has ever been a case for peace-keeping forces that aggressively patrol and a world-wide relief effort, this is it.
But outside of Colin Powell, this isn't getting much play in Washington. And in the UN, Khoffi Anan has made it pretty clear at times that even though he is from Africa, he hasn't got much desire in being involved in that continent.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a worrisome prospect and one that isn't too far fetched. For the past year or so, it does seem that there has been a positioning game with Iran as the US administration seems to be saying "Just give us a reason, any reason."
Iran, on the other hand, has been good at dodging and deflecting recently, but one has to wonder when they may run out of wiggle room and finally find themselves painted in the corner.
Their government is scared and ours hasn't flinched. Both parts of that worry me greatly.
While we haven't apparently made outward overtures to the possibility of war, there has been a not-to-subtle threat looming over the Iranians.
The threat might keep them in line for a while, but eventually someone living under a threat will strike back. Eventually.
I just worry that we are creeping over the threshold and luring our potential adversary into starting the fray. And while it might make for good strategy, it just isn't right.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think it is a safe assumption that Bush wouldn't start another war prior to the election, and i can only hope that he won't get re-elected and Kerry will be a little more sane vis-a-vis invading other nations on shoddy pretexts.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On further thought... Hmmmmm... I don't think attacking Iran is a good idea. Syria maybe, but Iran has such a young population who like the West. They are changing the way Iran works...of course very slowly, but it's changing.
But who am I to say...
And attacking North Korea is just stupid. They are an isolationist nation ruled by stupid lunatics. They don't really do terrorism. They just talk big and stupid and then do nothing and go back to being quite for a few years.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
North Korea will either crumble under the ponderous weight of a tyrannical, communist regime or lash out against some one close like Japan or South Korea, I think. (read OSC's essay on this...He makes some good points)
As far as Iran, I think the idea was that the Iraqi and Afghani people would embrace democracy and Iran would look east and west, figure it out and throw down the Theocracy. And this still my happen. What is troubling me the most is the overwhelming feeling that the action in the middle east would be like creating a democracy "just add water" In Iraq, a certain portion of the population will always despise us because they supported Hussien and reaped the benefits of being in the controlling minority. I don't know numbers, but is even as little as 10% of the populace wants to throw us out and retore a Baathist style of rule, we're in for a long, bloody struggle.
Really, that is not as close to the truth as there being innumerable little factions seeing a vaccum of power and thinking that if they just could get us out of there, they could seize control and run the show. They know what happened in Vietnam and Somalia and Ruwanda. Their hope is that US will decide the cost is too high and let them "fight it out amongst themselves" The common citizen there has been lied to all their lives that USA is the great satan and the reason they are poor is because we stole it from them and as proof of our status as infidels, look at the garbage they produce (Hollywood, contemporary music, etc)Its mob mentality on a massive scale.
But, then again, I'm just a dumb redneck. . .
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:common citizen there has been lied to all their lives that USA is the great satan and the reason they are poor is because we stole it from them
i have to say that this is partially correct. say what you will about the evils of saddam hussein and the need for containment, it was the sanctions which we imposed and enforced which put most of iraq in poverty. if we wanted to keep iraq from becoming a military power again there were better ways (getting rid of saddam's government the first time around being the most obvious example), but instead we chose to starve the country to death, giving it resources only in exchange for oil. the last decade+ of our relations with iraq disgust me, and i really don't blame the iraqis for hating us; we earned it.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. The UN imposed those sanctions and the US, being the chumps who until recently only did the UN's bidding, enforced it. The appeasment arm of the UN (which is just about everyone not named USA or UK) restrained us from finishing the job in 1991 (big mistake, we should have then)
The economic sanctions imposed were the benevolent world communitiy's answer to containing Saddam, yet many nations (France, Germany, Russia) ignored them and still bartered proscibed items for oil. Most importantly, Iraq still had plenty of cash to build immense presidential palaces and acquire numerous other amenities for the pleasure of the regime and it's henchmen, but no food for the people. I will agree that the economic sanctions were foolish, ill-concieved and counter productive, yet A.) they were a UN mandate that we enforced and B.) left plenty of money to feed the people if used properly.
BTW: It is nice to have a debate on such topics and not be called a Nazi, as any conservative would be in many places on the internet. We may disagree, but thank you for being decent about it, folks.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also point out that any action could be construed negatively.
Sanctions are perhaps the most painful because the people making the decisions don't suffer. In such an instance, drek flows uphill.
Which, as CP pointed out, the message blaming America for a starving child or no medical supplies is difficult to accept when it comes from a Presidential palace and a well-fed spokesman.
posted
And we could always trust what comes from the mouths of Iraqi governmental spokesmen, right Baghdad Bob? What ever happened to that guy, anyhow? At least he was more believable than Michael Moore. . . .
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
are you really arguing that the UN decided to impose sanctions and then pushed us into accepting it against our will? when you're a member of the security council, nothing happens that you don't want to happen. i also find it a little convenient that we got everything out of the agreement we could possibly want: relative political stability in Iraq (compare what's happening now to what happened after the first war), control of the region (thank you no-fly zones, which incidentally i believe were not sanctioned by the UN but imposed voluntarily by us and the UK), and oil (oil-for-food). On top of all that, blame for the suffering of the iraqis fell on Saddam (was he given terms under which the sanctions would be lifted, or was it like Cuba where we just keep them there till a new government takes over?)
if you drop a rabid dog in a baby's crib, whose fault is it when the rabid dog mauls the baby, the dog for being what it is, or you for putting it in a position where it will do harm, knowing as you do so the probable consequences of your actions? not a perfect analogy i know, but the bottom line is that we could have handled the iraq situation better, and we are responsible for not helping as much as we could, after we conquered the country in the first place.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
But I submit the US forcing a regime change is not going to be well received, if at all.
The biggest critical failing of the new Iraqi government is the American involvement which will stain it in the minds of too many people for it to last long.
However, time will tell.
-Trevor
Edit: And I submit, we did not conquer Iraq after the first Gulf War. We broke their army and wrecked all sorts of chaos and they would have been hard-pressed to stop an invasion, but we did not invade, nor did we conquer.
i don't know enough about it, so i'll take your word for it.
quote:the US forcing a regime change is not going to be well received, if at all
true, but we comitted ourselves to basically one of two options when we started attacking their army: topple and replace their government or subdue and control it. we obviously chose the latter. my mind is fuzzy today, but i can't remember a single instance of the latter which worked well in the long run, in fact the first thing that comes to mind is the way Germany was treated after WWI, and that obviously turned into a fiasco.
i guess i feel like if you're going to mount an all out campaign against a country, you need to do so with the intention of replacing that country's government.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't even directed at Iraq proper, but rather with the intent of forcing the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.
Since the Iraqi government under Saddam was based on terror and brutality, I suppose you can equate an attack on the military as an attack on the government, but I believe the two are distinct and seperate.
quote:but I believe the two are distinct and seperate
then i take it that you don't support any of our interventions in iraq after removing their military from kuwait? after all, the no-fly zones and sanctions were targeted at the government, not the military.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yes, we did go along with it and I said that it was an ill-concieved ploy to try and make Saddam behave himself. It was either that (perhaps if the sanctions had been placed and enforced in good faith by all members of the UN properly) Run him out like we just did with a more profound international mandate as we might have had in 91, or walk away and let Saddam rape murder and torture until his evil little heart was content. Personally, I say we should have whacked him in 91, nothing else may have been any different (in terms of global support, insurrection we face there now etc.) but it would have been alot cheaper. Instead, we took our infrastructure home and sent it back 11 years later. Not real cost efficient.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
