PDA

View Full Version : Rollin' rollin' rollin', keep those bombs a fallin'...


johnny
18-01-2005, 12:29 PM
US commandos have been operating inside Iran since mid-2004, selecting suspected weapons sites for possible air strikes, claims award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh.

The claims - made in The New Yorker magazine - have been attacked by the Pentagon blasted as being "riddled with errors". Hersh, who exposed prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004, wrote that he was repeatedly told by US intelligence and military sources that "the next strategic target was Iran". "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign," a former high-level government intelligence official told the magazine.

"The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy," the official said. Oh, so we've worked out exactly who the bad guys are huh? What is this a fucking John Wayne movie? So much Hollywood mentality.....
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said in a statement that Iran's "apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organisations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment" than Hersh gives it.

The article "is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," DiRita wrote. Kinda like the credibilty of the penatgon and the CIA after 1) no WMD were found in Iraq and 2) that the insurgency still continues to grow into an insipid civil war. remember George Tenet, the head of the CIA that told both George.W and the UN security council that it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD? Well he's no longer head of the CIA.........

Hersh's sources "feed him with rumour, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made," the statement added. The Pentagon however said nothing about Hersh's claim that President George W Bush has authorised US commandos to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia, including Iran.

According to The New Yorker, secret spying missions have been going on inside Iran for at least six months on declared and suspected nuclear, chemical and missile sites. The goal is to "identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," Hersh wrote. A top government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told the magazine that Pentagon civilians, especially Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, "want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible".

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believed Iran's clerical regime could not withstand a military blow and would collapse, the magazine reported. Hah! yeah, just like all the Iaqis would greet US forces with "flowers and song" when Saddam fell. And just like how the fight would end once Saddam was caught, huh?

US planners were getting foreign help: Israeli consultants are helping develop potential weapons targets inside Iran Oh good, at least the Arabs won't spin this into some kind of Zionist conspiracy...... :rolleyes: , and US commandos are using Pakistan as a springboard for operations inside eastern Iran, according to the magazine.

In return, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had received guarantees that he would not have to hand over disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan to international authorities for questioning.In February last year, Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, took responsibility for transfers of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
In Islamabad, foreign ministry spokesman Masood Khan said there was no such collaboration."Pakistan does not have much information about Iran's nuclear program, so I think this report is far-fetched and it exaggerates facts, which do not exist in the first place," Khan said.

AFP


This thread may put the whole pakistan issue in context.
http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=16457&highlight=pakistan

Oh by the way, some of you may have noticed that Pervez Musharraf has refused to relinquish his role of Military Commander whilst the country's president. This was a stipulation made by America in order to recognise him as a legitimate leader. So, we have a country that supported (well, made really) the Taliban, supported Al Qaeda and the Kashmiri insurgents, sells nuclear weapon capabilities to rogue states and is a military dictatorship..............................Cool, let's go bomb Iran instead ;)

"......I don't want to sail with ship of fools, no oh ohoh......." World Party.

manny24
18-01-2005, 12:36 PM
cool, yeah and elvis is still alive :D

scblack
18-01-2005, 12:55 PM
Johnny,

Clearly people at our level (bunch of idiots on a website forum :D ), are unhappy with the attitudes and actions of the current American administration.

Are you aware whether this undercurrent of unhappiness with them, is shared or reflected in some way, by the worlds leaders, or at least some if them? Not many at present are exactly standing up to them, often for economic reasons.

Is there any evidence of anyone having any balls at this point? Or showing reserved feelings? At least that you're aware of?

johnny
18-01-2005, 01:08 PM
Johnny,

Clearly people at our level (bunch of idiots on a website forum :D ), are unhappy with the attitudes and actions of the current American administration.

Are you aware whether this undercurrent of unhappiness with them, is shared or reflected in some way, by the worlds leaders, or at least some if them? Not many at present are exactly standing up to them, often for economic reasons.

Is there any evidence of anyone having any balls at this point? Or showing reserved feelings? At least that you're aware of?

Not particularly, as much as I'd like to say Chirac and Schroeder, they're really doing it for their own strategic reasons. But you can still look at the aborted Security Resolution that was supposed to be passed to legitimise the invasion. The US couldn't get enough votes to secure the resolution. Yes France was going to veto, but if you get 9 yes' with a veto and the rest being abstentions, you can forward the vote to the general assembly. The US could not get this (they new this before the votes because they were bugging everyones offices at the UN and have admitted it). So whilst the influential are not standing up and being counted, there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction.

Although this maybe of an economic nature too. Nobody wants to live in a world where the sole super power controls everything, because then most trade and economic factors will be geared to the super powers advantage.

I believe this trend will continue until either the US electorate gets tired of seeing body bags come home, al a the "vietnam syndrome" (which is why the Pentagon will not allow publicity of these body bags as it did in the Vietnam war) or China becomes too much of an economic powerhouse as to attract the majority of US attention.

dunk
18-01-2005, 01:10 PM
I suspected when the US originally invaded Iraq that they would then use Afghanistan and Iraq as bases to invade Iran. Then move on over to invading Syria from Israel and Iraq.

How they'll do this to North Korea I'll never know....

timmo
18-01-2005, 01:39 PM
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said in a statement that Iran's "apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organisations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment" than Hersh gives it.


Does anyone else find it ridiculous that a country with the biggest standing nuclear arsenal in the world (and a demonstrated reluctance to further reduce it) is touting "nuclear ambitions" as a reason to invade another country?

RCOH
18-01-2005, 02:04 PM
some more fuel for the fire:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/17/1105810839417.html


So will Thursday's inauguration be a sombre event at a time when the US is involved in wars that could yet be lost and when the President, despite his clear if narrow victory in November, has a 43 per cent approval rating, the lowest for any re-elected president in the past 60 years?

Not a bit of it. The theme is "Celebrating Freedom and Honouring Service", and it's going to be the most expensive in US history, with most of the $US40 million ($52.6million) being spent on ... well, partying.

Cave Dweller
18-01-2005, 02:38 PM
Johnny,

Clearly people at our level (bunch of idiots on a website forum :D ), are unhappy with the attitudes and actions of the current American administration.

Are you aware whether this undercurrent of unhappiness with them, is shared or reflected in some way, by the worlds leaders, or at least some if them? Not many at present are exactly standing up to them, often for economic reasons.

Is there any evidence of anyone having any balls at this point? Or showing reserved feelings? At least that you're aware of?

I reckon Mark "Fuck you America" Latham would have done that, as opposed to John "I will lick your arse hole Mr Bush" Howard :D

S.
18-01-2005, 03:14 PM
I reckon Mark "Fuck you America" Latham would have done that, as opposed to John "I will lick your arse hole Mr Bush" Howard :D

I seriously doubt that Latham would have done anything significantly different to Howard in terms of sucking up to the Yanks. Same goes for pretty much any realistically potential PM IMO.

johnny
18-01-2005, 03:26 PM
Aawww, I don't know if I agree with that. Bob Hawke was widely known for telling G.B snr what he thought. Bob Hawke also sent troops to the 1st gulf war, but then again that was with UN approval and about 90 other countries.

S.
19-01-2005, 08:48 PM
Aawww, I don't know if I agree with that. Bob Hawke was widely known for telling G.B snr what he thought. Bob Hawke also sent troops to the 1st gulf war, but then again that was with UN approval and about 90 other countries.

"Same goes for pretty much any realistically potential PM IMO."

Ahh, I love it when I cover my arse via semantics :)

As if Latham wouldn't have said "let's do it!" if Dubya had rocked up one day saying "Hey BUDDY, we just found PROOF that Eye-rark is downloading "how to make a nuclear bomb" manuals from the internet". I'm not entirely sure who was the one lying as far as the whole fallacy thing goes (whether it was Bush or whether it was someone who was giving him the "intelligence"), but whether Howard actually knew the stuff was BS is anyone's guess AFAIK.

IMO all politicians suck up when it's their arse on the line. It's much easier to not suck up when you're the opposition or the Greens or something, because they're not the ones ultimately held responsible for the decisions.

johnny
19-01-2005, 10:01 PM
"Same goes for pretty much any realistically potential PM IMO."

Ahh, I love it when I cover my arse via semantics :)

As if Latham wouldn't have said "let's do it!" if Dubya had rocked up one day saying "Hey BUDDY, we just found PROOF that Eye-rark is downloading "how to make a nuclear bomb" manuals from the internet". I'm not entirely sure who was the one lying as far as the whole fallacy thing goes (whether it was Bush or whether it was someone who was giving him the "intelligence"), but whether Howard actually knew the stuff was BS is anyone's guess AFAIK.

IMO all politicians suck up when it's their arse on the line. It's much easier to not suck up when you're the opposition or the Greens or something, because they're not the ones ultimately held responsible for the decisions.

Yeah, I reckon you're pretty on the money there. Decisions are a lot easier to make, when your's aren't the ones being put to the test. Australia has a pretty long history of towing the line for our "great and powerful friends", no matter who's in office. As I said, B. Hawke was a little more forward with them, but that was also his whole political demenour and probably personality too.

As for who knew what when we were all told there was proff of WMD, I believe many were happy to be told whatever they heard. Once it's done, it's done. Two days ago the inspection teams pulled out due to lack of evidence, but the only way to reach that conclusion was to go to war and find out.

Others didn't like what they heard, so they set up dual analysis group headed by Douglas Fieth in the Pentagon and produced dissidents like Ahmed Chalabi. Ahmed has subsequently been arrested along with his cousin for giving info to Iran..................by the CIA, who aren't the best of friends with the Def. Dept. George Tenet, head of the CIA has left his job "to spend more time with the family". The dogs have been long barking for Rummsfelds head as head of the Def. Dept.

As easy as it is to form differing opinions as an oposition, it's just as easy to hear what you want to hear, when you can blame the person who gave you that advice when it all goes to shit. As for John H., hasn't he already said that our inteligence came from the Yanks?

Juuuuuuust keep passin' that buck along........

There were many who said all along that the Intelligence was wrong, there was no imediate threat, invasion will end in civil war: Hans Blix, Mohummad El' Baridei, Scott Ritter (Former FBI Weapons inspector) Andrew Wilkie (Australian ONA intelligence analyst) God knows how many retired generals, politicians, academics, media commentators and funnily enough, Saddam Husein.................. not to mention a couple of million people in the streets of the world. My banner said "Howard Saddam Bush and Blair are ALL LIARS", I think I was right too!