Here are a couple different outlooks on the chances of the U.S. attacking Iran. First, our President...…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Who do YOU believe, Scott Ritter or George Bush? - Comments Page 2
Here are a couple different outlooks on the chances of the U.S. attacking Iran. First, our President...…
Article comments
26 - simon hb
Hmm... tricky question.
Scott Ritter.
Now, I'll have 'Haliburton links with Saddam' for 300, please.
27 - Eric Olsen
I wonder how many people -- on both sides of the question -- had their minds made up before even reading the post? That's an object lesson in itself.
28 - Dave Nalle
>>Now, I'll have 'Haliburton links with Saddam' for 300, please.<<
As one of the largest oil service companies in the world Haliburton, of course, has links with EVERYONE who tries to pull oil out of the ground. And guess what, it means nothing at all.
dave
29 - Hal Pawluk
If you look past the headlines every single day screaming out "that the administration is doing everything it can to avoid the military option" you'll find that the source is the administration, which kind of puts a ding in the credibility.
Non-adminstration sources, like Hersh, have evidence of a different reality.
I'm confident that the administration is planning an attack on Iran. It may not be an invasion, but rather some "shock and awe" from 30,000 feet and missile batteries.
And it may not come to fruition for some reason or other, but I think it is naive to believe it is not being planned.
Whatever your current thinking, it's worth reading (or re-reading) the Hersh article (opens in new window).
30 - Eric Olsen
I think most interested people read Hersh when it came out.
As has been stated many times before, there is "planning" of every kind going on for almost every imaginable scenario, it's the only way to not be caught off guard. And a surgical air strike, or secret commando operations are very different things than an invasion.
I believe the greatest concern is that any overt military action will rally nationalism in an environment where there is strong, if diffuse, opposition to the anachronistic government in power.
31 - Dave Nalle
>>I'm confident that the administration is planning an attack on Iran. It may not be an invasion, but rather some "shock and awe" from 30,000 feet and missile batteries.<<
We already have SOG units operating inside Iran, so in a sense we're already attacking them.
That said, I feel little sympathy for Iran. They're reprehensible bastards, one step from the Taliban, and they need to be brought into line.
I'm up for anything short of an actual war if that's what it takes to get them to wake up and smell the reform.
Dave
32 - Big Time Patriot
"Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing." Well, we know they weren't working with Al Qaeda, they had a few meetings but there is no evidence of collaboration. What is the name of the OTHER terrorist group that Iraq was working with to attack America?
Also, some of you keep denying Scott Ritter could be telling the truth because you don't believe there is one American patriot who would be willing to spill the beans on another half-assed invasion plan? Maybe there is someone who supports the troops MORE than they support George Bush having to be honest with America?
Could be..
If you don't care who told Robert Novak the name of an undercover CIA agent, why are you so determined not to listen to this information without a certified testimonial statement?
All the signs that were there before the Irag war are now showing up for an Iran war, the same people are in power, they have mostly denied any failure in their previous judgements, why do you have trouble believing they will make exactly the same judgement now? Nobody in Europe or the Middle East (except for possibly Israel) is asking for an invasion of Iran, (exactly the same as before Iraq).
If there is a war with Iran, will Republicans be claiming next year,
"It was unanimous, all the countries were with us, we had to do it."? Pay attention NOW to what support there is for a war with Iran and whether anybody except the administration (the same people who sold us WMDs in Iraq) claims to have any proof of immediate threats?
33 - Dave Nalle
BTP:""Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing." Well, we know they weren't working with Al Qaeda, they had a few meetings but there is no evidence of collaboration. What is the name of the OTHER terrorist group that Iraq was working with to attack America? "
Well, they were working with Hesbollah to attack Israel, we know that. That those 'few meetings' with Al Quaeda included hosting a training camp, substantial amounts of money changing hands and shelter and medical care for Al Quaeda leaders. So there's plenty of reason to expect them to be willing to sell WMDs to Al Quaeda. And frankly, who realistically believes Saddam wouldn't sell WMDs to anyone at all who wanted to attack the US?
Dave
34 - Big Time Patriot
You said "Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing."
"Well, they were working with Hesbollah to attack Israel, we know that." That is NOT being involved in attacking America.
You said, "those 'few meetings' with Al Quaeda included hosting a training camp, substantial amounts of money changing hands and shelter and medical care for Al Quaeda leaders." My understanding is that the training camps were in the area of Iraq out of Saddams control, that he was prevented from controlling partly through our "no fly zone" (I'm not saying that was our intent, just a sad byproduct of the whole mess). Who gave money to whom? I'm not too sure about that, did bin Laden give money to Saddam or vice versa? How much is substantial amounts of money? Thousands, millions?
But this is the one that cracked me up, you said: "And frankly, who realistically believes Saddam wouldn't sell WMDs to anyone at all who wanted to attack the US?"
That sounds pretty threatening, except that Saddam DID NOT HAVE ANY WMDs. You could have said, "frankly who realistically believes that if Saddam could fly and he had small pox germs handy, he wouldn't personally have dropped blankets infected with Small Pox on American cities." It would be just as true of an argument.
35 - Big Time Patriot
Actually, here is something to think about. If the US started dropping bombs on Iran, there would be one strategic reply that comes to mind for Iran.
What would happen if Iran sent several hundred thousand troops over the border into Iraq? Our soldiers would be pinched right in the middle if the insurgents also decided that was a ripe time to go all out. What a freaking mess that would be...
36 - Temple Stark
anoyne read Teeth of the Tiger - Tom Clancy?
This all reminds me of that. And if you read that as I did - I'm sorry. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much trying to describe the action of tanks fighting. Boring. The first half of the book was good though.
37 - Dave Nalle
I'm not sure it's possible to respond to you last post, BTP, since it essentially consists of unsupported denial of established facts, but here are a couple of points.
If Saddam supported terrorism in Israel why is it unreasonable to expect him to support it against the US?
The Al Quaeda training camp in northern Iraq was apparently built and protected by Iraqi soldiers - no flying required.
Do remember that we all thought he had WMDs, and whether he actually did or not doesn't matter. If we thought he had them and it was reasonable based on past actions to assume he'd pass them on to terrorists, it was reasonable to assume he was a threat.
Dave
38 - Scott
The very last thing this country needs is another ill-conceived and poorly executed war.
39 - Big Time Patriot
"Do remember that we all thought he had WMDs, and whether he actually did or not doesn't matter."
I think you are having a little confusion between what you believed and what "we all thought"... If you believe that the entire world believed Iraq had WMDs (apparently Scott Ritter is surely not one of "we"), well, there is a word for it, one that Mr. Bush sometimes likes to use, its "revisionist history". All I can say is that there were doubts about George Bush's reasoning and proof BEFORE THE WAR. Did you not notice any "No Iraq War" signs anywhere in the United States? What do you think that "we all were thinking"?
Well, I'm done with this for now, but I will tell you this now. SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IRAN MAY NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR THREAT WORTH STARTING A WAR OVER. Got it? Print this out and tuck it aside and after the Iran war starts, pull it out and look it over before you start saying "we all thought this" or "we all thought that".
40 - Dave Nalle
88% of the US population thought Saddam had WMDs - that's 'everyone' enough for me. And that included all sorts of experts and a majority of people in both parties, etc. This is old news. Don't act as if it's some sort of revisionism. Surely you remember.
As for the 'no war in iraq' people. Most of them though Saddam had WMDs too, they just didn't want to go to war in Iraq on principle.
Iran is a different deal. I don't think we should go to war there uinless circumstances change radically. But something does need to be done to neutralize any atomic threat from Iran, and it does seem pretty clear they're set on having a bomb come hell of high water.
Dave
41 - Hal Pawluk
< irony>
Iran is, of course, a lot more of a nuclear threat than North Korea.
< /irony>
I think Iran is acting very rationally from their perspective.
They can see that countries that actually have nukes get tippy-toed around instead of threatened by George "Bring 'Em on" Bush.
42 - simon hb
Dave...
>>>>Now, I'll have 'Haliburton links with Saddam' for 300, please.<<
As one of the largest oil service companies in the world Haliburton, of course, has links with EVERYONE who tries to pull oil out of the ground. And guess what, it means nothing at all.<<<<
Erm... but Haliburton had links with Saddam *during* the sanctions, and its subsiduaries helped Saddam skirt them. Indeed, Cheney has been less-than-honest about this going on while he was at the company. If it means "nothing at all" then why won't he be honest about it?
43 - AckSyn JAckSyn
I think what people are missing here is that America HAS plans to attack Iran means little or nothing. America HAS contingency plans to attack Russia or any other country. Its JUST a plan of action, its not set in stone, besides that it would be an AIR Attack on IRAN designed to take out the supposed Nuclear sites, its not an Invasion force.
Secondly, if Scott Ritter were really on Saddams payroll, don't you think Bush would have him strung up in Git. Bay out of reach of the Media?
Heres one to think on:
Whom are you most Likely to Believe?
A)Reagan whom Called them Freedom Fighters,
B)Bush Jr. whom Called them Terrorists.
C)None of the Above
The Correct answer is 'C'
44 - Jerry
Saddam was a toothless tiger but Bush wanted to tie up the Iraqi oil to let prices soar. That's pretty obvious now. We thought the Neocons were just inept bunglers, but this was their plan all along.
It's easy to verify from U. N. and U. S. gov't documents that more WMD was destroyed in Iraq by the U. N. inspectors than by either the U. S. invasion and/or bombing raids. Now the real WMD's in Iraq are the Depleted Uranium weapons dropped by the U. S. on the poor people of this abused country!!!! Our own soldiers will suffer terrible diseases in years to come from these hideous weapons!!!!
45 - Alan Richard
Amazing. In 2005, after years of occupation and a scouring of the country without a shred of evidence supporting the administration's claims (I'm not talking about the significantly altered claims made afterwards to try and make us forget what the claims actually were), so many people were still willing to believe George Bush over a decorated marine who had actually spent time REALLY working against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and who was, after all, dead-on about the outcome.
It makes me wonder whether our need to engage in idolotrous adulation of a human being has become so severe that we will continue to fabricate fake pasts for monsters whom we will elect under the illusion that they will protect us from reality. Reality, alas, doesn't care whether or not we want to know it. It has a way of getting our attention or killing us.
46 - MBD
It's noteworthy that the media has boycotted Scott Ritter.
He doesn't get around much anymore.
What does that say about the media?