I’m not sure that watching this thread slide off into attempts at humor makes it any more palatable.
Perhaps it’s done
The Taliban sponsored and supported al Queda, who committed the attacks on 9/11.
PatriotX denied that a government would sponsor terrorist attacks on US soil even from any of its proxies, because the US response would be overwheming. Iran sponsors and supports Hizbollah, which is a terrorist group which has attacked Americans.
So the general principle has been suggested, and refuted by an immediate counter-example.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah well, although there’s no point in clearing up the main question any longer, it’s worth clearing the facts on a separate issue now.
The use of the plastic keys on Iran’s part does not, in fact, show that they were trying to hold onto power. Claiming so contradicts the facts of the Iran-Iraq war. The war was not launched by Iraq in order to remove, replace, or otherwise kill Iran’s leadership.
In fact, one of the main stated goals was Sadaam’s desire to gain control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway and the largely Arabic (not Farsi) speaking, oil-rich Khuzistan region. Other reasons included the suspected Iranian sponsorship of the assassination attempts of Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz and Latif Nayyif Jasi as well. And yes, while Iraq’s fear of Iran’s fundamentalism certainly played a role, and Iraq wanted to retaliate for and or to discourage Iran from instigating such assasination and/or rebellion in the future, events during the war put paid to the suggestion that removing Iran’s regime was in any way a major goal of Iraq’s invasion of Iran after the first three months, if it ever was at all.
Looking at the facts of the issue, we could see that after a fairly short time of several months, after Iraq had accomplished most of its territorial objectives, Iraq actually proposed a negotiated settlement. Iran rejected. In 1982, under punishing attacks, Iraq withdrew from Iran. At which point, Iran invaded Iraq. In 1984, Iraq offered a negotiated settlement again. Iran refused. In fact, even during the end of the war in '88, when Iraq responded to missile attacks against Baghdad with roughly 200 missile strikes over a six week period that were directed against Tehran, they did not use chemical warheads. A rather odd choice to launch so few missiles and not to use chemical weapons if their goal was the destruction of the regime in Tehran.
As always, the peanut gallery can determine for themselves whether Iraq offering to stop the war is evidence of Iraq’s desire to remove the Iranian regime from power and/or if the Iranians deliberately sacrificed children in order to hold onto power or to accomplish military goals after Iraq had already offered to negotiate a peace settlement.
The Basiji themselves were largely composed of children 12 to 17 years old, and they were used in ‘human wave’ tactics during assaults. This gives a good picture on how the theocrats treated Iranian children in this war.
Further, contrary to assertions, there is nothing hyperbolic about the mention of the plastic keys. Nobody claimed that they managed to sacrifice those half a million children, merely that ordering that number of keys represented a desire and a willingness to do so. After all, if the Iranian leadership had not been willing to sacrifice that many children, why order that number of keys? And yes, the children who were given the plastic keys were indeed used to clear mines. More to the point, they were used as living mine flails. Which of course is an interesting fact that has some relevance to the oft repeated claim that Iran’s leaders would not attack the US because “they love their children too.” (ignoring, of course, that certainly any governmental bunkers have room for a few kids, too).
As to the claim that Iran is somehow 1/8 as evil (on the FanaticalBloodlustOmeter, of course) as Europe… one would have to ask how many European children who became casualties were killed because their governments used them in suicide missions. And, of course, whether the circumstances of WW II were at all similar to the Iran-Iraq war. One might, for instance, ask how many times the Nazis offered to negotiate a peaceful conclusion to the war, only to be met with refusals by the rest of the European powers, hellbent on war and willing to send 12 year olds into mine fields…
Several things are clear: the Iranian theocracy has a history of being willing to sacrifice their citizens in pursuit of their goals. The US does not have the capability to invade Iran, and as such could not remove the theocrats from power in any case. Any change in the Iranian government will almost definitely have to be internal and organic in generation. Even if the US had the capacity to get enough boots on the ground to occupy Tehran, it is almost certain that a US invasion of Iran would touch off a much larger regional conflagration which would make any total US victory almost impossible and/or would allow the Iranian leadership to escape into exile to any sympathetic group of Islamists or Islamic Neo-Fundamentalists. Even if we are to credit the US using nuclear strikes as a potential event, it’s a certainty that if the Iranian leadership has near-impregnable underground housing for their nuclear facilities, that their leaders have bunkers of equal if not greater protective capacity.
Even now, we see that the Taliban has been regaining power in Afghanistan. Evidently sponsoring terrorists who attack the US is not necessarily fatal for a regime.
Due to all of the above facts, there is of course no firm support, at all, for the idea that we can totally disregard the possibility of any future Iranian attacks against us because of our retaliatory capabilities.
It’s interesting that, per your injunction, I can’t point out certain things: when people use double standards, deliberately ignore evidence, evince a lack of desire to retract factual errors or when they put forth specific claims about issues without knowing the very basic facts about those issues before the claims are made… but others feel free to comment on such behavior by mocking its correct label.
Ah well.
You are mistaken.
If you take a look at the author of whatever post you’re talking about, you’ll find that it was not me.
Is this your honest interpretation of what tomndebb wrote? Cause it sure seems at odds with what was written. It is also at odds with the moderation I’ve seen in the past on this board.
I think you may be mistaken in this assessment.
You didn’t post this,, or this?
Someone must be hacking your account. I’d look into it.
Regards,
Shodan
Neither of those links are to posts saying what you said **Patriot **said, but I’ll let him defend himself on this matter.
Well I did make those posts. Apparently you have grossly misinterpreted them.
Cause I all I said was that the Taleban did not equal the Iranian govt, and that because of that, things which are true of the Taleban are not necessarily true of the Iranian govt. And therefore just because the Taliban would do or did do X it is insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that the Iranian govt would also do X.
If you have some way of demonstrating that the Iranian govt will do or would do everything that the Taliban does then please present it.
Alternatively, you could demonstrate that the Iranian govt IS the Taleban. That would work too.
Also, you could just, you know, demonstrate that the Iranian govt would do X and leave the red herring Taliban completely out of the equation. Just a thought.
All that other stuff about “denied that a government would sponsor terrorist attacks on US soil even from any of its proxies, because the US response would be overwhelming” came from somewhere other than my posts.
FWIW, I thought the following article made a good follow-up to the myriad of points some posters – noticeably, Maeglin, PatriotX, 'luc, lowbrass, the pleasantly and surprisingly quite coherent on this matter John Mace (chapeau, John), and my own very modest contributions – have brought-up against FF’s vapid rants.
I’ll leave to the powers that be to decide if I’ve posted too much of said article and broken any copyright laws. In any event, anyone interested can read the whole piece at the linked source and decide its relevancy to the topic and the intent to twist, frame and misinform we’ve seen as a constant in this thread.
Other than that, just wanted to get the following off my chest. I really despise the high-falootin’ and at the same time, spiteful term, “peanut-gallery” when referring to those that may be following this thread though not directly involved in it. I much rather think of them as “readers” who 1-have not made-up their mind and are looking for information to do so or 2-feel themselves (whichever side they are on) already well represented by the current participants.
A bit of respect goes a long way into making friends…or at the very least tolerant as opposed to warring factions for that matter. To be sure, there’s a lesson to be learned there as well.
Ah, Charley Reese! I was surprised to see his name on this – I once worked for a weekly newspaper that featured his column and I remember him as a notable, sometimes astonishing, knuckle-dragger (he once actually condemned a Congressional bill to compensate Japanese-Americans interned in camps during WWII) – but I guess this is yet another instance of paleoconservatives finding common ground with left-wing peaceniks WRT the GWAT.
They were all much more convincing than you were, however (well, most of them were).
Let me see if I have this right from your wonderful, um, cite (I always find phrases like ‘foam-at-the-mouth warmongers’ to be so balanced and open minded):
The US intelligence agencies (as well as one or two intelligence agencies out there in The World™…or so the rumor goes) actually thought Iraq DID have WMD prior to the invasion. Oh, certainly this wasn’t a universal consensus or anything…but I would guess that something similar to ‘a consensus of America’s 16 intelligence agencies’ would have given the nod to Iraq having SOME kind of WMD laying about somewhere (I know…it’s fashionable in these parts now to ignore this but work with me here).
Anyway, so, these same intelligence agencies now say that they are reasonably confident that Iran probably DOESN’T have a current, working nuclear program (cough caveat cough…and this leads you (and the author of your ranting cite) to the conclusion that this is a good thing? Why do you trust those same intelligence agencies NOW? Because…well, because they are saying what you want to hear? Honestly?
For my part I’m pretty well convinced that Iran’s nuclear program is on hold. Personally I think that this has a lot to do with the pressure put on Iran by the world (including those evil American types)…and some to do with probably internal Iranian issues (funding perhaps? Maybe the technology challenges? Not sure). This is, IMHO a GOOD thing…we don’t really want Iran to get nukes for the reasons that should be obvious watching current events in Pakistan.
This doesn’t mean, however, that we should just go back to sleep wrt Iran…that we should declare victory in this and just forget about them. Whether, as John Mace seems to think, we can build a closer relationship to Iran at this time, we should definitely keep a close eye on them. They have some rather distasteful associations in the region after all…and until they decide to divorce themselves from such groups I don’t think vigilance wrt to Iran is wasted effort. Hell, I don’t think vigilance wrt Saudi is wasted effort either…and they don’t (afaik) HAVE a nuclear program.
YMMV (and probably does), but I think keeping an eye on Iran for the foreseeable future is a smart thing for the US to do.
-XT
First off ordering 500,000 plastic keys if they were indeed even ordered at all does not demonstrate an intention to sacrifice 500,000 children just to clear mines. It demonstrates an intention to buy 500,000 plastic keys. For all you know, these keys may have been nothing more then generic holy symbols. I have yet to find any reference to these 500,000 keys that does not look like histrionics or obvious anti-Iranian propaganda.
The Iranians had the opportunity to demonstrate their “desire and willingness” as you call it to sacrifice 500,000 children just to clear mines. All the elements needed to carry out such a plan if there was one were there, Iran had the teenagers, they allegedly had the keys (insert the obligatory “made in Taiwan” reference), and the Iraqis certainly had the minefields. Unfortunately for your argument, events proved that there was in fact no such desire or willingness. Iran sought peace instead when the cumulative human cost to itself was still only a fraction of what comparably sized European societies had been prepared to pay in the world wars.
As for attacking into minefields, I dont know to what extent this was actually done. It was reported at the time as occurring, especially around Basra but there are also large elements of wartime propaganda that cloud the issue. Its also evident from more analytic studies of the Iran-Iraq war (such as here ) that Iran felt the need to constrain its own casualties and the war was not just the ‘human wave’ attacks across minefields of Western imagination.
We were asleep as regards Iran? When was this?
You may recall, the OP had to do with the level of belligerance and hostility on public display from our Administration. The idea being that, in the absence of any firm evidence to justify such, we might be will advised to tamp it down a bit. Give peace a chance, to coin a phrase.
(Is this one of those “binary” things? Where the only two options are constant saber rattling and growling threats, or curling up with our bankies and falling fast asleep with our thumbs in our mouths?)
I quite agree that “keeping an eye on Iran…is a smart thing to do”. We probably also agree that it is inadvisable to flavor our popcorn with cyanide. How this might be enhanced by public sabre-rattling escapes me, perhaps you will advise.
As for your suggestion that we are gullible and biased people, quick to believe that which suits us… I have intelligence, with a pretty reliable degree of certainty, that you possess a navel, and are as likely to suffer this mental incapacity as any of us.
TWEEEET!!
OK. I have not been able to find the post where FinnAgain has actually argued in favor of military action to be launched against Iran. I am also tired of seeing this claim (or statements that boil down to the same) repeated endlessly in this thread. My personal view is in conflict with FinnAgain on a couple of philosophical points regarding our dealings with Iran, but I am getting pretty sick of having to read back through this endless thread one more time to (fruitlessly attempt to) discover where he has engaged in warmongering or anything similar.
Knock it off. Address his actual points or sit on your hands.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, we have no relationship with them at all right now, so pretty much anything we did would make it closer. And what better way to keep an eye on them than to be able, at least, to talk to them directly? We don’t have to forgive them for the hostage thing, and they’re probably not going to forgive us for the Shah thing. But we patched things up with China, so I think we could do something similar in Iran.
I know of no evidence that the consensus of the U.S. intelligence agencies following November, 2002, held any such opinion. Clearly, the consensus of the intelligence agencies (other than the artificial agencies (e.g., OSP) set up for propaganda purposes), at the end of February was that Iraq had no WMD.
What agencies might have believed in the summer of 2002 (which was pretty conflicted) had resolved pretty clearly against any WMD possession following the re-entry of the UN inspection teams.
Rather trhan being fashionable for one side of the argument to ignore the (conflicted) beliefs of the intelligence community in the summer of 2002, it seems to me to be much more fashionable for adherents of the opposiong argument to merge speculation from the summer of 2002 with lies from the OSP that occurred in the Spring of 2003 as though there had been no reevaluation of the information as it more clearly indicated that the WMD were phantoms.
(Interestingly, the U.S. administration appears to have believed the actual intelligence services that there were no WMD rather than their own OSP lies in that they made no effort secure a single location purportedly holding WMD when the U.S. military invaded.)
Well, maybe not. They might have believed they were there, but we just didn’t know where. Which is true, we didn’t know where they weren’t. Which is why we offered a big cash reward for anyone to turn them in. A quarter million, wasn’t it? And no takers.
I thilnk they believed it, the human capacity for self-deception being what it is. This is evidenced by the offer of a big cash reward for information. If they knew already there was no such sites, they wouldn’t have embarassed themselves.
They did it because they were sure it would work, and I’m sure they were right: if those sites existed, somebody *would have * ratted them out in a Baghdad minute. When no one came forward, they were surprised and astonished.
The horrors of history are more about stupid than evil. And I don’t know if thats good news, or bad.
Cite? This sounds remarkably like someone trying to change history here Tom. Everything I’ve read is that there was a pretty solid consensus in the intelligence community that Iraq had SOME WMD. There were certainly elements that disagreed with that assertion and those elements were certainly ignored…but you are stating that there was a clear consensus in February of 2003 among US intelligence agencies that Iraq had NO WMD? I’m calling total bullshit on that unless you have something to back that up with.
Really? Should be pretty easy then to back that up I would think. It’s difficult for me to find cites for this as you do a google search and you are flooded with myriad anti-Iraq sites. I found this one from Carnegie Endowment (whatever that is):
This seems a reasonable approximation of my own memories of that time. Incorrect? Ok, let’s see a cite then. Again, I’m not stating that Bush et al didn’t blow these rather tepid findings WAY out of proportion…of course they did. But then again, I find this consensus NOW about Iran’s nuclear program rather tepid and full of caveats as well. I find it a bit amusing that NOW our intelligences organs are considered infallible (when they are saying what some want to hear), while those same intelligence organs prior to our invasion of Iraq were at least as confident that Iraq DID have some kind of WMD’s, either stockpiled or programs…when in fact Iraq had pretty much nothing at all.
Well, we’ll see what you dig up cite wise I guess. I’m willing to concede I’m wrong and that there was a consensus among intelligence agencies that Iraq had no WMD at all…if you can prove it. I’ve never seen anything like what you describe…just some disagreement with the overall assessment, and of course the fact that Bush et al exaggerated the degree of threat being reported and downplayed the areas of disagreement or inconsistent data.
You don’t think that there is any conflict or difference of opinion among the intelligence agencies about the current state of Iran’s nuclear program?
John, I agree with you…I think we SHOULD have at least some dialogs with Iran. In fact, I think we ARE having a dialogs with them atm…and that we should exploit this latest assessment to try and normalize relations, at least to some degree. However, it’s a two way street…and the US isn’t the only one unwilling to bridge this gap.
Also, patching things up with China was a different proposition than patching things up with Iran, don’t you think? The two situations are dis-similar. This isn’t to say that we can’t try and normalize things…but that Iran is going to have to meet us half way if we are ever to bridge the huge gap between us. Do you REALLY think Iran is going to be willing to meet the US halfway on this?
My own opinion is that the US should continue to use the Euro’s as the ‘good cop’ to our ‘bad cop’…or at least ‘wary cop’…for the foreseeable future. I think THEY are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting on this one, just because of our history with Iran.
YMMV, but I seriously doubt any US president (even someone who is Not Bush™) is going to be able to initiate a closer relationship with Iran as long as they support groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
-XT
We have no direct talks with Iran. Remember what a big deal it was when Condi and her Iranian counterpart attended the same meeting concerning Iraq a few months ago? And she made it clear that there would be no discussion of issues not directly related to Iraq. The Europeans are the ones doing the talking and negotiating with Iran over nuclear weapons. We’re in the background.
I don’t know what you mean by “halfway”, but I think they’re willing to talk to us if we’ll talk to them. We are the obstacle to that happening, not Iran.