CIA report: we are not attacking Iran for WMD only

[gulfsecurity]

The real reason for the controlled leak of information was to give a warning to Ahmadinejad, "The US-led invasion of Iraq was based on a false CIA report regarding Saddam's WMD program, we know that you don’t have a nuclear weapons program, and we are not going to attack you for that only but for your interventions in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and the hegemony in the Arabian Gulf; so far you have failed to respond to our warnings, we’ve roll out the myth of WMD, now stop acting as a rogue State." As posted at gulfsecurity.blogspot.com

To handle dangerous countries or Axis of Evil states by direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified in the Bush Doctrine and Mr. Bush is practicing that for the last time.

 

[eaf-f16]

The real reason for the controlled leak of information was to give a warning to Ahmadinejad[/B], "The US-led invasion of Iraq was based on a false CIA report regarding Saddam's WMD program, we know that you don’t have a nuclear weapons program, and we are not going to attack you for that only but for your interventions in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and the hegemony in the Arabian Gulf; so far you have failed to respond to our warnings, we’ve roll out the myth of WMD, now stop acting as a rogue State." As posted at gulfsecurity.blogspot.com

To handle dangerous countries or Axis of Evil states by direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified in the Bush Doctrine and Mr. Bush is practicing that for the last time.

Ummm....the US does all of those thing except on global scale.

Does that mean that staging terrorist attacks on the United States is alright?

And the US doesn't just intervene. It bombs civilian areas, invades and occupies sovereign nations to install friendly governments and achieve hegemony (which you say you want to attack Iran for)...

 

[gulfsecurity]

No one said its alright to stage a terrorist attacks on the United States.

The US was sending a massage to Iran with" you think we gana attack you for your WMD , then look the CIA said you don’t have since 2003 ,but we gona attack you any way. For other reasons, go figure."

 

[Chrom]

No one said its alright to stage a terrorist attacks on the United States.

The US was sending a massage to Iran with" you think we gana attack you for your WMD , then look the CIA said you don’t have since 2003 ,but we gona attack you any way. For other reasons, go figure."

So i dont get it, who is a bad guy here?

 

[Sea Toby]

Its simple really. Its the economy stupid. The government has since the world depression managed and controlled economic policy and management. When rogue states upset the economy, say upset the cart, or balance, every other state is gonna do its best to set the economy back on track, one way or the other.

Politicians get elected for stable economies, politicians don't get re-elected when the economy is a mess. Unfortunately, every time there is a rumor of chaos abroad, it upsets the price of oil, which upsets the economy.

We want a stable economy. One would think everyone does. Unfortunately, there are those for personal reasons who wish to unstabilized the economy. The personal reasons could be for more power and/or more money by manipulating and destabilizing the markets.

 

[Chrom]

Its simple really. Its the economy stupid. The government has since the world depression managed and controlled economic policy and management. When rogue states upset the economy, say upset the cart, or balance, every other state is gonna do its best to set the economy back on track, one way or the other.

Politicians get elected for stable economies, politicians don't get re-elected when the economy is a mess. Unfortunately, every time there is a rumor of chaos abroad, it upsets the price of oil, which upsets the economy.

We want a stable economy. One would think everyone does. Unfortunately, there are those for personal reasons who wish to unstabilized the economy. The personal reasons could be for more power and/or more money by manipulating and destabilizing the markets.

There is only 1 problem - speaking about "economy" you silently mean ONLY USA economy (or, West European at best). Speaking about "stable politic" - you mean exclusevely USA stable politic. And etc. Many problems and instabilties in world economic and politic directly caused by USA actions. Many problems in particular countries economic and politic are also caused by "western" nations.

USA politicans do everything for benefit of USA nation (allthought in some cases we can argue only for personal benefits, and not nation...). Thats fine with me - after all, everyone cares for own country. But dont pretend what other countries should give up THEY benefits for the good of West. Dont tell us what they do it for "World Greater Good" or "Holy Democracy". Becouse they dont.

And if someone high up in chain of command really believe in such reasons - they are dungerous fanatics. Just as dungerous as any religious fanatics, or communists fanatics , or nationalist fanatics. All fanatics have one in common - they are blinded by they ideology, and try to reach "ideal" disregarding any casualities and any rational sence.

 

[Sea Toby]

Surely, the up and down roller coaster of oil prices we have seen the last few years, rising and falling $20 to $40 per barrel from rumors about the political stability of Nigeria alone, has not made it easy for any economic adviser anywhere. We can have a downfall of housing prices or in the value of the dollar, currently in the works, and have less economic impact than the price of oil. I am amazed we haven't overturned the Nigerian government and stabilized that country too.

You and I don't want intervention. But there are those who do, mostly those who have invested heavily into the markets. They don't care so much about freedom and independence, or who is in power, as long as their personal bottom lines are in the green and not bleeding red ink.

You talk of the West, but Eastern economic advisers are having the same problems, look at all of the East Asian markets, from Tokyo to Hong Kong to Singapore. Its not just the West, its the whole world.

 

[Chrom]

Surely, the up and down roller coaster of oil prices we have seen the last few years, rising and falling $20 to $40 per barrel from rumors about the political stability of Nigeria alone, has not made it easy for any economic adviser anywhere. We can have a downfall of housing prices or in the value of the dollar, currently in the works, and have less economic impact than the price of oil. I am amazed we haven't overturned the Nigerian government and stabilized that country too.

You and I don't want intervention. But there are those who do, mostly those who have invested heavily into the markets. They don't care so much about freedom and independence, or who is in power, as long as their personal bottom lines are in the green and not bleeding red ink.

You talk of the West, but Eastern economic advisers are having the same problems, look at all of the East Asian markets, from Tokyo to Hong Kong to Singapore. Its not just the West, its the whole world.

Sure. Peoples, they greed and they lies are pretty much universal around the world.

Besides, i dont think high oil prices are bad for USA or West Europe. High oil prices have much worse effect on 3rd world countries - except these which have both oil AND can control own oil. High oil prices, by itself, cant lead to economic recession in developed countries. This can tell you any resonable honest economic expert.

 

[Incognito129]

high oil prices can lead to a recession. In the 70's there was a recession due to the oil shock.

Monetary policy has changed its focus towards inflation and curbing supply shocks so today it most likely wont sent the US economy into a recession.

Iran has nothing to do with money, or oil. There was the threat of the dropping dollar once Iran stopped doing transactions in USD, but thats been done and we're already seeing it.

And the US doesn't just intervene. It bombs civilian areas, invades and occupies sovereign nations to install friendly governments and achieve hegemony (which you say you want to attack Iran for)...

Contrary to what you said, the US government has a history of being accused of abandonment. Alot of what you said is not true setting aside the middle east. We do have bases in allied countries in the EU, and far east.

 

[Chrom]

Contrary to what you said, the US government has a history of being accused of abandonment. Alot of what you said is not true setting aside the middle east. We do have bases in allied countries in the EU, and far east.

One do not contradicts to the other. USA can bomb civilian areas and install friendly goverements and still be accused of abandonment. Besides, USA is certainly not unique here. Many other counries (USSR, China, EU counties, etc) done the same.

Still, USA mistakes are amplified and got more attention due to sheer USA power. Thats all. USA is certainly not "evil empire" and is resonable sane for they power. They just no angels or holy land like pictured in some propaganda.

 

[eaf-f16]

Contrary to what you said, the US government has a history of being accused of abandonment.

What do you mean by abandonment? And what did I say that is contrary to what you said? Clarify, please.

Alot of what you said is not true setting aside the middle east.

So, you're saying that the US never overthrew any unfriendly democratically elected governments outside of the Middle East? Never killed any civilians outside of the Middle East?

Are you sure about that?

We do have bases in allied countries in the EU, and far east.

Yes, I know that you have foreign bases. What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[eaf-f16]

One do not contradicts to the other. USA can bomb civilian areas and install friendly goverements and still be accused of abandonment. Besides, USA is certainly not unique here. Many other counries (USSR, China, EU counties, etc) done the same.

I wasn't trying to single out the US. I thought gulfsecurity was saying that Iran should be attacked by the US not only becuase of its nuclear program but, also becuase of Iran's "interventions in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and their hegemony in the Arabian Gulf". So, I told him that the US does all of those and worse except on a global scale which is true. And I asked him whether he thought that becuase of this Al-Qaida was right in staging terrorist attacks on the US. Which I think we can all pretty much agree were wrong.

I was making a comparison to show him how hypocritical and wrong that statement was. I wasn't trying to say the US is the only one that does this.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

I believe that the real reason to bring Iran back into line is Iran Oil Bourse as primiary and nuclear as secondary.

Currently, only three Oil Bourse exist in the world and all three trade in US dollars. Iranian Oil Bourse which was to be inaugerated last week at the island of Kush was recently sabotaged (as per controversial reports) was to trade in Euros.

Pretty much the same thing along the lines on what Saddam of Iraq tried to do: Trade in Euros and guess what the USA did first thing after taking over Iraq ? They switched it back to US dollar.

 

[Chino]

John Kerry said on CNN something about the "al-Qaeda being stronger than ever" since WOT and that US presence in Iraq "has attracted a lot of foreign Islamic terrorists to Iraq" and that the US "can't get out now" cos its presence in Iraq has attracted a lot of foreign Islamic terrorists. And there is no end in sight and those who say the war in Iraq is being won, is dreaming.

John Kerry called it a "vicious cycle".

And now US wants to attack yet another peaceful Islamic country.

Whoopee.

 

[Feanor]

America is not invading Iran, WMD's or no WMD's. Why? Simple. No troops.

 

[Pro'forma]

Quote:Gulfsecurity

Who are saying when to handle dangerous situations is beginning
and when tolerable interval is placed or/to begin new direction.
Adjustment to any reporting, attacking is not direction of its own right.

Nor danger has welcomed by any; nor one person making agreement,
islamic agreement, is by any means good enough.

 

[Chino]

Pretty much the same thing along the lines on what Saddam of Iraq tried to do: Trade in Euros and guess what the USA did first thing after taking over Iraq ? They switched it back to US dollar.

Evidence abound that US wanted Iraqi oil badly.

The whole "WMD" thing was bollocks and the first thing US troops did was take over and guard Iraq's oil facilities. They left the rest of Iraq including its museums unguarded (US had disbanded the Iraqi military) and eventually all were looted by rioters.

 

[PullerRommel]

Well what we have to fear is Mccain being (sorry for introducing politics but ifeel it pertais to the subject because of his views) president is a ll gung ho on bombing Iran. And IMHO i think Amahdinejad wouldnt mind retaliating unlike others who allow the bombing.

 

[Feanor]

What can Iran retaliate with? Some limited assymetric means maybe blocking the straights (or rather attempting to)? Sending weapons into Iraq? They already are. The point once again is that the U.S. is already stretched too thin. Another major campaign is impossible without either withdrawing from Iraq or Afghan.

 

[PullerRommel]

Rocket Barrages, Missiles, Arty Barrages. I also recall Ahmedinejad glouting about his Martyr Forces ready to strike at American Strategic points around the world