Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 25, 2004.
i am positively stupefied.
Good lord, I hope that's not true. I was figuring Chalabi was playing us for suckers so he could wind up in power, but this would be disastrous for the US. This would mean Iran has plans for the destabilazation of Iraq and is likely funding an ongoing guerilla insurgency. It means Iran plans to exercise control over the future (read Shia) of Iraq. That means the Sunni and the Kurds and the Turkmens and others are all in danger if a balanced government doesn't take shape in Iraq soon.
Fine mess we're in if this is true. We can't stay and pacify Iraq as long as Iran is supporting insurgents, nor can we leave and let the Iranians run the show. Talk about getting conned.
If true, then the Iranian intelligence services have been (for want of a more appropriate term) masterful.
Not only did they manage to get the US to remove one of their key regional enemies, they have also managed ( through US actions) to :
1. badly harm European-US relations. In thus doing they have virtually ensured that Europe is unlikely to take the same hash ecomomic stance to Iran that the US does.
2. greatly diminish the standing of the US in international community and especially in the Muslim world. This in turn decreases the liklihood of further uni-lateral action against Iran (economic, political etc. ) by the US
3. reducing the liklihood that Israel will attack its nuclear facilities. (which Israel has threatened to do). This liklihood is reduced because Israel may be unwilling to do this without US backing. and given (2) above the US may be unwilling to give such backing or approval.
4. iprove the standing of Iran in the region and especially within Iraq. by calling for US withdrawl in Iraq, and vocally condeming the US actions. Also capitalising of the large scale resentment of the US forces in Iraq (according to the latest polls) it makes the development of an Iran friendly Iraq more likely
helping to secure Iran as a regional power.
Imagine Iran got the US to help make it more secure and influential in the ME.
if it weren't for the abs horrendus loss of life and missery caused one would be hard pressed to call this (if true) anything other than highly impressive.
Of course i'm talking about the skill of the Iranian Intelligence services, rather than praising what they have actually done
5. tied up the majority of the US military, making it that much harder to go full scale against iran
indeed. if true, i'll have to give them a "well played!"
And Dubya the "chump of the millenium".
this sounds bad....... ... it really starts to look like a bad movie now
i mean what's next ?
This is, if true.........
Adjectives fail me.
I've read about this the past few days and I have a few problems with the idea.
Many agencies of the U.S. government were aware that Chalabi was a con-man. So, why would the administration, and the neo-cons in particular, go along with Chalabi's lies? Because it supported the goals they had all along.
In other words, even if Chalabi had died of a heart attack five years ago, do you think Bush, Chaney and crew wouldn't have wanted to invade Iraq?
I think Chalabi is a bad player -- a crook who is hungary for both money and power. In other words, a fellow traveler.
I wouldn't be surprised if Iran has been working behind the scenes to damage U.S. interests. Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil, after all. The U.S., essentially, had declared a new cold war against them. To me, it just shows that Iran is better at playing big league politics than the Bush crowd.
But was the Bush administration duped into a war? No way -- they wanted this war in the worst way. Were they "played"? Sure, like a cheap fiddle.
This calls to mind a need to find out where all the bad intel came from. Where did those phony Niger documents originate? Someone went to some effort to forge those, but was it done by opportunists looking to make some money, or was it something else? We know many of the WMD reports came from people with contacts to the INC, but were they aided in any way? Some 'scientists' now seem to have been giving information that exceeded their knowledge base. IOW, they appear to have been coached with knowledge they didn't have. Who coached them?
This needs to get sorted out. Something like this cannot be allowed to happen again if it did happen, and if we wern't played by the Iranian intelligence services we need to know that too. It greatly affects how we proceed from here.
Maybe so, but it is not like any of us saw this one coming...
Sure, but if they hadn't been so eager to have this war, they might have been a little more critical about the motives of some of these 'informant' types. And apparently the intel agencies had a bad feeling about Chalabi and his crowd for a long time, yet the Pentagon overrode those concerns because of their adherence to neocon gospel.
Interesting possibility to be sure, but IMO, this is just another example of the administration trying to pass the buck and deflect responsibility for their own mistakes. Since Iran is a member of the "axis of evil" could this just be a convenient scapegoat? Makes me wonder who is playing who...is Iran playing us, or is the US playing the world (or at least its' own population coming into an election)? We are a nation with ADD, after all...
so let me get this straight...
a) plan war
b) surround yourself with known liars and flunkies who support the war
c) war goes terribly askew
d) blame liars and flunkies
we've just witnessed the full philosophical transfer of corporate unaccountability to our government.
Talk about a complete and utter failure of intelligence services!
To think Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, is shaping our foreign policy... the irony!
i too believe the " axis of evil" is shaping our foreign policy...but i think the axis is somewhere near crawford, texas...
Clinton's Intelligence services. If memmory serves Clinton revamped the CIA and I doubt Bush had time to undo the damage. Similar to Clinton damaging our military forces and Bush being stuck with what was left and having to rebuild it.
Bill Clinton's military did pretty well in Afghanistan, no?
As I remember it, the CIA did not trust Chalabi or any intel via him, stemming from a 1995 incident (attempted coup), which is discussed in another thread about him. The Pentagon and Dept. of Defense is another matter...as far as the military goes, first off, by the luxury of not having to fight a major engagement for a good long while, US forces were perhaps a little rusty in engagements and logistics, and during peace-time, there is often a shifting of priorities away from the military. I also seem to remember the military being "streamlined" by Rumsfeld, with such interesting features as merging special forces with regular units...but that is just me...
You are preaching to the choir here. I support the troops 100%, but, the more I read about our motives, the more dissapointed I am.
Isn't that a bit difficult? If the troops are carrying out a mission you mistrust, where do you stand? If the troops are killing people in your name, what price your support?
I support the troops because they do not have a choice on whether to go to war or not. They did when they first signed up, but after that they must follow orders or face the consequences. I can respect their courage to risk their lives everyday, regardless of my own political beliefs.
OK. Just checking.
You might like to read this:
Sorry, but "they told me to do it" doesn't fly. They do have other moral options. Like standing as a group and refusing to fight. And they can face the consequences of standing up for what they believe is right or wrong. I don't know how many of them even realize that what they are doing is wrong and don't want to be there.