History is already repeating itself! Criminal exile linked to Iran intel!

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Spurious attempt to tie Iran, Iraq to nuclear arms plot bypassed U.S. intelligence channels
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backchann...ed_to_bypass_U.S._government_0111.html
Update: Retired Paris CIA station chief Bill Murray confirms and corrects.

Several U.S. and foreign intelligence sources, along with investigators, say an Iranian exile with ties to Iran-Contra peddled a bizarre tale of stolen uranium to governments on both sides of the Atlantic in the spring and summer of 2003.

The story that was peddled -- which detailed how an Iranian intelligence team infiltrated Iraq prior to the start of the war in March of 2003, and stole enriched uranium to use in their own nuclear weapons program -- was part of an attempt to implicate both countries in a WMD plot. It later emerged that the Iranian exile was trying to collect money for his tales, sources say.

By all credible accounts, the source of this dubious tale was Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer who used middle-men and cut-outs to create the appearance of several sources. Ghorbanifar played a key role in the Iran-Contra scandal that threatened to take down the Reagan administration, in which the U.S. sold arms to Iran and diverted the proceeds to Nicaraguan militants.

While the various threads of the larger story of Ghorbanifar and his intelligence peddling began in December of 2001, meetings in Paris in 2003 are far more important in illustrating -- as a microcosm -- the larger difficulties faced in untangling the facts relating to global intelligence trafficking.

Tall Tale of Uranium

During the spring and summer of 2003, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) made several visits to Paris to meet with a source believed to have important military intelligence information.

Unbeknownst to Weldon, the informant, who he would dub simply "Ali," was already peddling a tale of stolen uranium traveling between Iraq and Iran that had been deemed false by most intelligence agencies.

As reported by American Prospect and confirmed by intelligence sources, Ali is a pseudonym used to identify a former minister in the Shah's Iran, Fereidoun Mahdavi. Mahdavi himself is a secretary to Ghorbanifar, the originating source of the uranium fable.

The American Prospect's reporters wrote, "'Ali' is actually a cipher for Manucher Ghorbanifar, the notorious Iranian arms dealer and accused intelligence fabricator -- and the potential instrument of another potentially dangerous manipulation of American policy in the Persian Gulf region."

The Washington Post discusses Ali as follows: "'These secrets,' he says, come from 'an impeccable clandestine source,' whom Weldon code-names 'Ali,' an Iranian exile living in Paris who is a close associate of Manucher Gorbanifar. Gorbanifar is a well-known Iranian exile whom the CIA branded as a fabricator during the 1980s but who was used by the Reagan White House as a middleman for the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran."

According to several intelligence sources on both sides of the Atlantic, the tale that "Ali" tells Weldon and others was as intricate as it was false.

"Ali provided information that indicated Iranian intelligence had sent a team to Baghdad to extract highly enriched uranium (weapons grade) from a stockpile hidden by Saddam Hussein," one intelligence source said.

Ali asserted that an Iranian intelligence team had infiltrated Iraq prior to the start of the war and stole enriched uranium to use in their own nuclear weapons program, sources say.

Ghorbanifar said "the team successfully extracted the stockpile but on the way back to Iran contracted radiation poisoning," one source remarked.

Upon learning this information Weldon says that he immediately notified then-CIA director George Tenet.

"Tenet appeared interested, even enthusiastic about evaluating Ali and establishing a working relationship with him," Weldon wrote in his book, Countdown to Terror. "He agreed to send his top spy, Stephen Kappes, the deputy director of operations, along with me to Paris for another debriefing of Ali.

"On the day of our scheduled second meeting with Ali in Paris, Kappes bowed out, claiming that "other commitments" compelled him to cancel," Weldon continued. "Later, the CIA claimed to have met with Ali independently. But I discovered this to be untrue... Incredibly, I learned that the CIA had apparently asked French intelligence to silence Ali."

But according to the Prospect and several sources in intelligence abroad, the CIA did investigate, as did the Department of Defense. According to the Post, the agency tasked then-Paris station chief Bill Murray with investigating the claim, who ultimately found Ali to be a "fabricator."

The CIA, understanding Ali to be Ghorbanifar, did not think him a credible source.

Intelligence sources and a source close to the UN Security Council tell RAW STORY Murray took Ali (either Ghorbanifar or his agent) to Iraq in order to retrace the footsteps of the alleged mission in which the uranium was stolen from Saddam's own stockpile and taken back to Iran. In the end, sources say, the entire event proved a wild goose chase because Ali's earlier clarity all but evaporated.

"Soon it became apparent that Ali and his sources were fabricators and were trying to extract large sums of money," one intelligence source said.

Murray says he did meet with the source, but was not part of a trip to Iraq.

"I did not make any such trip," Murray said. "I met with the source, found that he was not credible, forwarded the information he gave us to Washington, where it was thoroughly analyzed by many people and found not to add anything new to what we knew about Iran. The sensational charges that the source made could not be substantiated."

Weldon's office declined to comment for the record after several extended conversations. RAW STORY delayed the article for a day to give Weldon's office a chance to comment.

The neoconservative movement has long expressed an inherent distrust of the CIA. Many neoconservatives note that the agency undercounted Russia's nuclear stockpile in the waning days of the Soviet Union, and believe that it routinely underestimates foreign threats.

Weldon, who had been led to believe the CIA never opened an investigation into the information he provided, took his case directly to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld then pressured the CIA to investigate further.

"CIA reluctantly, after pressure from Rumsfeld, followed up by detaching one of their weapons experts from the team that was hunting WMD in Iraq," one former CIA officer who asked to remain anonymous said.

Sources say that this second investigation resulted in another wild goose chase. The question of motive, however, seems to either have been entirely missed or simply glossed over.

Weldon seen caught in web

By all accounts, Weldon seems to be more of an innocent bystander taken in by an internationally known con-man and the lure of spook-like activities than an inside player with an agenda or material participant in these events.

The Ali composite seems to have used Weldon as a conduit by which to provide the CIA with information.

There was good reason to be cautious of Manucher Ghorbanifahr, who, along with his secretary, made up the "cipher" of Ali.

The CIA had already had issued two burn notices against Ghorbanifahr as early as 1984 and his role in Iran-Contra as a middleman between the hardline neoconservative and another Iran-Contra figure, Michael Ledeen.

In his book, Weldon said he met Ghorbanifahr after being approached by a Democratic congressman.
"On March 7, 2003, a former Democratic member of Congress and my good friend Ron Klink called and asked to meet with me. . . . The source was Ali. My contacts with him were at first by telephone. Subsequently, Ali sent faxes to my home on a regular basis from different hotels in Paris, where he lives in exile. Eventually, as the information became more detailed and critical, I decided on a face-to-face meeting." (Countdown to Terror, p. 4).

Why such highly important information would be provided to Klink and then Weldon as opposed to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee remains unclear.

Neoconservative Leeden explains meetings

Ghorbanifahr has strong ties to Michael Ledeen, and both of them were involved in a controversial meeting in Rome of 2001. That meeting, whose purpose is unknown, included high level officials in Italian intelligence, Iranian nationals and Larry Franklin, a former Defense Department analyst who current pled guilty to charges of passing classified information to Israel and Iran. Also in attendance was Middle East expert Harold Rhode, also under investigation for charges of passing classified information to Israel and Iran. Both Rhode and Franklin worked for Feith in the Office of Special plans.

Ledeen was consulting for OSP when all three were dispatched to Rome in 2001. He says the meetings had nothing to do with Iraq.

"The Rome meetings had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, but with Iran and Afghanistan," Ledeen wrote in an email. "I don't think a single word was pronounced, by anyone, on Iraq."

Later, in a phone conversation, Ledeen explained that the Rome meeting had to do with what his sources told him was going on on the ground in Afghanistan, namely that Iran was allegedly fueling the Afghan insurgency.

"I reported this back," Ledeen said. "This information saved American lives."

According to James Risen's New York Times article dated December of 2003, Ledeen was a paid consultant to the National Security Council at the time of the meeting. Risen reports that National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was informed of the plans for the meeting and that Hadley expressed reservations given Ledeen and Ghorbanifahr's background.

The Office of Special plans, however, authorized the meeting without notifying any other agency, violating protocol. They did not notify the Rome CIA station chief or the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, Mel Sembler.

Ledeen, however, says that Hadley had authorized the trip. This would also implicate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then-National Security Advisor.

"Hadley authorized it and he could not have done so without reporting it to his direct superior," said Ledeen.

Ledeen also denies that he had anything to do beyond that first meeting in December of 2001.

"I was involved in one meeting, in Rome, in December 2001," Leeden said. "Period."

Paris, Again

The uranium story peddled to Weldon is strikingly similar to the story told to Ledeen.

"I approached a variety of government officials, lots of them, and told them that I had a reliable source that told me about how and where the Iranians stole enriched uranium from Iraq," Ledeen said.

Ledeen says his source then went on to explain that the "stash" was buried in an underground facility and recounted, much like Weldon did, that neither the CIA, the Defense Department or the State Department would listen to his concerns.

Asked if his source was Ghorbanifahr, Ledeen said "No," but was unable to tell the identity of his source for fear said source might be "put in danger."

Who arranged the meetings and their ultimate purpose remains unclear. One intelligence official, however, described the series of events and the market of intelligence trafficking as follows: "If you were going to launder intel to make up a war, you could easily send some fool on an errand."
Replace Ali with Curveball and Ledeen and Ghorbanifahr with Feith and Chalabi and you've got an exact repeat of the spread of lies and dubious information from criminal exiles in order to create an artificial justification for military action.

Un-fvcking-believable!

Ledeen, btw, has been linked to spying for Israel along with other PNAC fvcks like Perle and Wolfowitz (as I've posted up here before) (here's a link to the article describing those criminals):

Serving Two Flags
Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5788.htm

Looks like this might have been a parallel operation to the stovepiping of intel done by Chalabi and Feith.

From Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski's The New Pentagon Papers:
Before the Iraq invasion, many of these same players labored together for literally decades to push a defense strategy that favored military intervention and confrontation with enemies, secret and unconstitutional if need be. Some former officials, such as Richard Perle (an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan) and James Woolsey (CIA director under Clinton), were granted a new lease on life, a renewed gravitas, with positions on President Bush's Defense Policy Board. Others, like Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, had apparently overcome previous negative associations from an Iran-Contra conviction for lying to the Congress and for utterly miscalculating the strength of the Soviet Union in a politically driven report to the CIA.

Neoconservatives march as one phalanx in parallel opposition to those they hate. In the early winter of 2002, a co-worker U.S. Navy captain and I were discussing the service being rendered by Colin Powell at the time, and we were told by the neoconservative political appointee David Schenker that "the best service Powell could offer would be to quit right now." I was present at a staff meeting when Bill Luti called Marine Gen. and former Chief of Central Command Anthony Zinni a "traitor," because Zinni had publicly expressed reservations about the rush to war.

...

I shared some of my concerns with a civilian who had been remotely acquainted with the Luti-Feith-Perle political clan in his previous work for one of the senior Pentagon witnesses during the Iran-Contra hearings. He told me these guys were engaged in something worse than Iran-Contra. I was curious but he wouldn't tell me anything more. I figured he knew what he was talking about. I thought of him when I read much later about the 2002 and 2003 meetings between Michael Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar -- all Iran-Contra figures.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Uh maybe you missed something within your story. Nobody seemed to believe him and we didnt invade Iran?

One other thing of note, yesterday Iran opened up their enrichment plant again to bring it online. So what cooking does anybody need to do when the country is opening admitting to enriching Uranium?

Unless you have another point this thread is quite pointless.

One other thing is the world is involved with the Iranian situation and will be until it is resolved.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh maybe you missed something within your story. Nobody seemed to believe him and we didnt invade Iran?

One other thing of note, yesterday Iran opened up their enrichment plant again to bring it online. So what cooking does anybody need to do when the country is opening admitting to enriching Uranium?

Unless you have another point this thread is quite pointless.

One other thing is the world is involved with the Iranian situation and will be until it is resolved.

Conjur just got PWNED!! gotta love it...

ps: Genx, trust me, Conjur never has a "point"...
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh maybe you missed something within your story. Nobody seemed to believe him and we didnt invade Iran?

One other thing of note, yesterday Iran opened up their enrichment plant again to bring it online. So what cooking does anybody need to do when the country is opening admitting to enriching Uranium?

Unless you have another point this thread is quite pointless.

One other thing is the world is involved with the Iranian situation and will be until it is resolved.

Conjur just got PWNED!! gotta love it...

ps: Genx, trust me, Conjur never has a "point"...

Why don't you read the article before being stupid.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.

LOL.. i guess you're ignoring their leaders' very overt desires to "wipe Israel off of the map"..?! oh, you're right, they just want nuclear power to power the lights in all of their remote mudhut villages...umm..ya...something like that.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.

How are they going to use this to invade Iran? They didnt use it back in 03, why would they use it now considering what Iran is doing and admitting to doing?

This article is written just for the sake of being written it appears.

btw anybody thinking Iran is building a nuclear device for defensive purposes is so blinded by idiocy. The EU is even shatting themselves knowing Iran can now hit them right at their heart with the missiles they possess.

afaik enriching Uranium is not something that is required in the newer light water reactors that Iran surely will have built. If Enriching uranium isnt needed, then why are they doing it? Only other purpose is for weapons grade Uranium. This is why even France is getting involved with this. They know one day they could piss the Islamofascists off and find Paris leveled at the hands of a terrorist group supplied by Iran.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
I can't wait until all religious people murder each other in the name of God :) ;)
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.

LOL.. i guess you're ignoring their leaders' very overt desires to "wipe Israel off of the map"..?! oh, you're right, they just want nuclear power to power the lights in all of their remote mudhut villages...umm..ya...something like that.

Gee, racist much?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh maybe you missed something within your story. Nobody seemed to believe him and we didnt invade Iran?

One other thing of note, yesterday Iran opened up their enrichment plant again to bring it online. So what cooking does anybody need to do when the country is opening admitting to enriching Uranium?

Unless you have another point this thread is quite pointless.

One other thing is the world is involved with the Iranian situation and will be until it is resolved.

Conjur just got PWNED!! gotta love it...

ps: Genx, trust me, Conjur never has a "point"...

Why don't you read the article before being stupid.
first, I did read the article, and second, the story in the article is not profound. It seems to me that all agencies that matter rightfully dimsissed the "intel," so what exactly IS the problem with that? What is Conjur's point? oh, do explain!
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Item 1 - What good is a nuclear weapon that has no delivery system of major capability,
so it would have to be used
defensively in their own country or region to their own detriment ?

Iten 2 - Iran could sell lots of oil to any buyer for pretty good profit if it, itself was not dependant on Oil as a fuel source,
and instead used Nuclear Power to provide the energy it needs internally.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.

LOL.. i guess you're ignoring their leaders' very overt desires to "wipe Israel off of the map"..?! oh, you're right, they just want nuclear power to power the lights in all of their remote mudhut villages...umm..ya...something like that.

Gee, racist much?

how in the hell was that racist?!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.
How are they going to use this to invade Iran? They didnt use it back in 03, why would they use it now considering what Iran is doing and admitting to doing?

This article is written just for the sake of being written it appears.
How could the US invade two countries at the same time? Esp. considering Iran has a pretty darn good military. Iraq represented the low-hanging fruit. Once Iraq was taken, then Iran woud be surrounded (US-occupied Afghanistan and US-occupied Iraq). Can you say, "squeeze"?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Item 1 - What good is a nuclear weapon that has no delivery system of major capability,
so it would have to be used
defensively in their own country or region to their own detriment ?

Iten 2 - Iran could sell lots of oil to any buyer for pretty good profit if it, itself was not dependant on Oil as a fuel source,
and instead used Nuclear Power to provide the energy it needs internally.

I believe Iran is or has developed a missile that is capable of delivering a warheard upto 1500 miles. That means they can hit most of the EU.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.
How are they going to use this to invade Iran? They didnt use it back in 03, why would they use it now considering what Iran is doing and admitting to doing?

This article is written just for the sake of being written it appears.
How could the US invade two countries at the same time? Esp. considering Iran has a pretty darn good military. Iraq represented the low-hanging fruit. Once Iraq was taken, then Iran woud be surrounded (US-occupied Afghanistan and US-occupied Iraq). Can you say, "squeeze"?

Still doesnt answer any of my question about your conspiracy theory making any sense whatsoever in the real world.

How could the US invade two countries at once? I dont know, we cooked two empires 60 years ago that were much more technologically advanced compared to us without blinking an eye.

edit: btw good to see you finally understand one of the reasons for invading Iraq. To squeeze Iran by erecting two democracies on both sides of her.

 

TGS

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,849
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.
How are they going to use this to invade Iran? They didnt use it back in 03, why would they use it now considering what Iran is doing and admitting to doing?

This article is written just for the sake of being written it appears.
How could the US invade two countries at the same time? Esp. considering Iran has a pretty darn good military. Iraq represented the low-hanging fruit. Once Iraq was taken, then Iran woud be surrounded (US-occupied Afghanistan and US-occupied Iraq). Can you say, "squeeze"?

Still doesnt answer any of my question about your conspiracy theory making any sense whatsoever in the real world.

How could the US invade two countries at once? I dont know, we cooked two empires 60 years ago that were much more technologically advanced compared to us without blinking an eye.

I think it had to do, that we were backed by more than a "coalition of the willing" that time.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: TGS
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.
How are they going to use this to invade Iran? They didnt use it back in 03, why would they use it now considering what Iran is doing and admitting to doing?

This article is written just for the sake of being written it appears.
How could the US invade two countries at the same time? Esp. considering Iran has a pretty darn good military. Iraq represented the low-hanging fruit. Once Iraq was taken, then Iran woud be surrounded (US-occupied Afghanistan and US-occupied Iraq). Can you say, "squeeze"?

Still doesnt answer any of my question about your conspiracy theory making any sense whatsoever in the real world.

How could the US invade two countries at once? I dont know, we cooked two empires 60 years ago that were much more technologically advanced compared to us without blinking an eye.

I think it had to do, that we were backed by more than a "coalition of the willing" that time.

That is fine, however we carried the majority of the offensive against the Japanese and provided a lot of the manpower and industrial might for the war in Europe. The idea that now we cant invade two countries that are 30+ years behind us technologically when in WWII we were at even or even behind in the case of the Germans is laughable.

But that is besides the point of this thread, which I am still trying to figure out what it is.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: Genx87

I believe Iran is or has developed a missile that is capable of delivering a warheard upto 1500 miles. That means they can hit most of the EU.

Since they don't have a beef with anyone in the EU, unless the US drags them in, that's not much of a concern to them.
It's a threat to Isreal though, and Isreal can take care of itself without our help, unless we want to invest in a
world of radioactive waste for everyone to share.
China and Russia can keep enough pressure to hold Iran at bay.
They used to be some of our greatest 'freinds' until that little Embassy thing, then the 8 years war with
Iraq where we used Iraq to pound them as a proxy fighter in a devastating war.
More than 75% of the people in that country are under 25 - since thier boys and men were wiped out.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
How could the US invade two countries at the same time? Esp. considering Iran has a pretty darn good military. Iraq represented the low-hanging fruit. Once Iraq was taken, then Iran woud be surrounded (US-occupied Afghanistan and US-occupied Iraq). Can you say, "squeeze"?
Still doesnt answer any of my question about your conspiracy theory making any sense whatsoever in the real world.
What conspiracy theory? I didn't say they were using this criminal figure to justify a war now! I meant to imply they were running a parallel operation to set the stage for invading Iran. Are you trying to deny that the OSP was running two fronts for the PNAC?

How could the US invade two countries at once? I dont know, we cooked two empires 60 years ago that were much more technologically advanced compared to us without blinking an eye.
By pure brute force. This is entirely different as the ramifications of invading Iran in addition to Iraq is that pretty much the rest of the world isn't going to be on our side. And you think Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity now? Imagine what the Middle East would be with double fronts.

edit: btw good to see you finally understand one of the reasons for invading Iraq. To squeeze Iran by erecting two democracies on both sides of her.
I've always understood that but we haven't really setup democracies now, have we?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
What conspiracy theory? I didn't say they were using this criminal figure to justify a war now! I meant to imply they were running a parallel operation to set the stage for invading Iran.

Except nobody bought into the what the guy was saying. So what is the story here? There isnt any parallel here.

By pure brute force. This is entirely different as the ramifications of invading Iran in addition to Iraq is that pretty much the rest of the world isn't going to be on our side. And you think Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity now? Imagine what the Middle East would be with double fronts.

Only because we lacked the technological edge. If we had B52s, smart bombs, and better equipment in WWII we would have sat back and decimated them at a much higher rate.

I am not buying into any of the hype regarding the capabilities of any ME army.

I've always understood that but we haven't really setup democracies now, have we?

You must have missed the elections, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.


Since they don't have a beef with anyone in the EU, unless the US drags them in, that's not much of a concern to them.
It's a threat to Isreal though, and Isreal can take care of itself without our help, unless we want to invest in a
world of radioactive waste for everyone to share.
China and Russia can keep enough pressure to hold Iran at bay.
They used to be some of our greatest 'freinds' until that little Embassy thing, then the 8 years war with
Iraq where we used Iraq to pound them as a proxy fighter in a devastating war.
More than 75% of the people in that country are under 25 - since thier boys and men were wiped out.

I dont know, the EU hasnt typically been that friendly to Israel. What would they honestly care if Israel is wiped out by a nuclear device or devices?

I think they know the consequences of having Iran go Nuclear with a missile that can hit them. Nobody is safe from the crazies running that country.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: Genx87

I dont know, the EU hasnt typically been that friendly to Israel. What would they honestly care if Israel is wiped out by a nuclear device or devices?

I think they know the consequences of having Iran go Nuclear with a missile that can hit them. Nobody is safe from the crazies running that country.


Overall they're rather appothethetical about Isreal.

How about nobody being safe from the crazies tunning this country.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the "yet" at the end of your first sentence.

As for Iran, there's nothing showing they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe they know more about peak oil than we do and want to increase nuclear power. It's a possibility no more plausible than they want a weapon. And, if they do want a weapon, it wouldn't be to use offensively. It would be to keep the warmongering, chickenhawk PNAC ideologues ruining this country from invading them.
How are they going to use this to invade Iran? They didnt use it back in 03, why would they use it now considering what Iran is doing and admitting to doing?

This article is written just for the sake of being written it appears.
How could the US invade two countries at the same time? Esp. considering Iran has a pretty darn good military. Iraq represented the low-hanging fruit. Once Iraq was taken, then Iran woud be surrounded (US-occupied Afghanistan and US-occupied Iraq). Can you say, "squeeze"?
that sounds to me like great "strategery" to me!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
What conspiracy theory? I didn't say they were using this criminal figure to justify a war now! I meant to imply they were running a parallel operation to set the stage for invading Iran.
Except nobody bought into the what the guy was saying. So what is the story here? There isnt any parallel here.
The parallel was the operation itself. Damn, you're being dense.

By pure brute force. This is entirely different as the ramifications of invading Iran in addition to Iraq is that pretty much the rest of the world isn't going to be on our side. And you think Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity now? Imagine what the Middle East would be with double fronts.
Only because we lacked the technological edge. If we had B52s, smart bombs, and better equipment in WWII we would have sat back and decimated them at a much higher rate.
I believe you just shot down your own argument there.

I am not buying into any of the hype regarding the capabilities of any ME army.
What hype? I'm not hyping anything.

I've always understood that but we haven't really setup democracies now, have we?
You must have missed the elections, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
Nope. I caught them. Doesn't mean there are democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, though. That will take at least another generation to happen. Afghanistan has a better shot at it but there's not much there in the way of resources to be much of an influence on anything. Iraq is far from a democracy right now. Elections were held but the result is looking like an Iran-lite for the moment.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The parallel was the operation itself. Damn, you're being dense.

But it wasnt, nobody bought into it? What is the point of the story? Some nutcase comes to the govt, the govt doesnt believe him? And???????

But lets throw in a personal insult when somebody points out the obvious lack of a point in your story.

 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Iran is openly hostile to the EU and Israel. Israel is not responding in kind, though the EU is making the mandatory objections. Who's the aggressor? Iran can deliver Nukes in-theatre, and likely can likely have a missle ready to hit the EU in less than a year.

BTW, if Israel wanted Iran wiped off the map, they (Iran) would be gone in a heartbeat. Irans military is less than is that of Syria or former Iraq. They are poorly trained and not in the same league as Israel, the United States or the EU.

Iraq had the best army in the ME and we see how well that worked for them....

They are now a rogue nation and will likely sufffer serious economic fallout as a result of their extremist views.