News Another obstacle to Iran attack is removed

[Art]

I have no beef with that statement - just the part where you talk about seven year old "recent events". Yes, I agree that you suspect.

Art, there just isn't enough content there to actually agree or disagree with. You didn't say anything.

What 7 year old 'recent events' did I refer to? His statement about not leaving it to the next administration is only a couple of years old and in case you didn't know the word 'forthcoming' in reference to Cheney's visit to the region means it hasn't happened yet. The US ships off Lebanon have only just arrived and the first references by Bush to the Iranian president as the new Hitler (which were made privately) was revealed by Seymour Hersh in 2006. Afterall they had to wait until the last new Hitler was dead before reassigning the title. Or perhaps you already know all this but couldn't resist trolling anyway? Grow up!

Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

By Philip Sherwell in Washington
Last Updated: 1:44am BST 11/04/2006

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.
snip
A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html

U.S. admiral leading wars in Iraq, Afghanistan resigns amid talk of war in Iran

PAUL KORING

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

March 12, 2008 at 6:36 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. military commander running the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq quit abruptly yesterday after a published report claimed he was fighting off a push by the White House to launch a third war against Iran.

Admiral William Fallon, who headed Central Command, which stretches from the restive Middle East across Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan and Central Asia and is the focus of U.S. President George W. Bush's multifronted war on Islamic extremism, ended a glittering military career in what seemed to be a rift with the President.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the President's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," said the admiral, who was traveling yesterday in Iraq. His staff issued the statement.

Last week, Esquire published an article that suggested the admiral was making a lonely last stand trying to stave off plans to wipe out Iran's nuclear program with pre-emptive air strikes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080312.wmilitary12/BNStory/International/home

Russia Criticizes US Ships Off Lebanon

By EDITH M. LEDERER – 3 days ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia told the U.N. Security Council on Monday that the presence of U.S. Navy warships in the Mediterranean off the coast of Lebanon was not helping resolve the political crisis in Lebanon.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, the current council president, said he raised the U.S. deployment at a closed council meeting on implementation of the U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon in August 2006.

"We pointed out the fact that basically all Lebanese political forces expressed their concern about that, including the government of Prime Minister (Fuad) Saniora, and we have said that such acts were bringing up some unwanted historical analogies," he said.

"So we did not see it as a constructive contribution to the situation in Lebanon," Churkin said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hv9R00tjpXgAoxMEB7017-yjPkewD8VAU5TG0

Cengiz Candar: Why is Cheney coming and what is he bringing?
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney will be in Ankara in two days. He will be on a quick Middle East expedition covering Oman to Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank and Turkey. The stops clearly suggest that it will be a trip to talk about Iran.

Cheney's being the visitor is all alone a topic of another article, as he is the “most hawkish” name of the Bush administration if the “Iran dossier,” in particular, is at issue. And the office of the U.S. vice president is frequently visited by the staunch advocates of Israel, primarily David Wurmser, demanding a “military strike against Iran.” These are the most hawkish figures among the “neo-cons.”

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/8457679.asp?gid=231&sz=30694

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with IBM training 101's advice about being 'better to sit there quietly etc etc '

 

[turbo]

He may have been forced-out, but guys like Fallon have a strong sense of duty. If something was getting in the way of him performing that duty (whether a real or perceived conflict doesn't matter), he would leave rather than perform his duties in a compromised fashion.

Here is an article by Philip Giraldi. He is a contributing editor and columnist for The American Conservative, among other things. According to him, Fallon was forced to resign, and his resignation was accelerated to get him out of the way before Cheney's trip to the Middle East.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/fallon-walks-the-plank_b_91987.html

The White House has often asserted that it likes open debate of issues and prefers to have generals and admirals who speak their minds, but that is a lie. The list of senior officers who have been replaced by the administration is a long one and nearly all of the changes have come about due to disagreements on policy, not because of incompetence or malfeasance. The White House decided that Fallon was running his own foreign policy and President Bush made the decision to fire him after the Esquire piece appeared, though the intention was to wait a month or so to let him retire quietly, permitting the administration to deny that any disagreement over Iran policy had been the issue.

Vice President Dick Cheney then intervened to move the resignation process forward, arguing that Fallon was a distraction for the Cheney trip to the Middle East, which started on Sunday March 16th. The vice president intended to discuss Iran with Saudi Arabia and other allies in an attempt to harden the line against the Mullahs, but the continued presence of Fallon suggesting that a softer line might be pursued would make Cheney's task much more difficult. Cheney wanted Fallon out immediately, to send the message that there is only one Iran policy and that Cheney is running it. Bush and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed and Fallon was made to walk the plank. The administration hopes that he will enter into his retirement quietly and accept some highly lucrative board memberships with defense contractors that will induce him to continue to keep his mouth shut about Bush policy in the Middle East.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/iraqaardec2007.pdf" - Dec 2007

The struggle for stability in the Iraqi Civil War has entered a new phase with dramatically
reduced levels of civilian sectarian violence, political assassinations, abductions, and
small arms/ indirect fire and IED attacks on US and Iraqi Police and Army Forces.
This is the unmistakable new reality ---and must be taken into account as the US debates
its options going forward. The national security debate must move on to an analysis of
why this new political and security situation exists---not whether it exists.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx

 

[mgb_phys]

But that statement can be used either way:
1, The troop surge was a massive success - so if we deploy even more troops in Iraq there will be even less violence.
2, Iraq is becoming more peacful - so we can remove troops.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to a few books discussed in the article, Who Really Brought Peace to Belfast, it took a civil servant bureaucracy and 30 years of infiltrating the IRA to finally bring peace.

Wait a minute: it wasn't Hillary?

 

[mgb_phys]

Wait a minute: it wasn't Hillary?

Wait until Tony Blair solves the middle east! The trouble is that he thinks he IS Jesus - which might not exactly help matters.

 

[mheslep]

But that statement can be used either way:
1, The troop surge was a massive success - so if we deploy even more troops in Iraq there will be even less violence.
2, Iraq is becoming more peacful - so we can remove troops.

Logically true. However, the goal of US leadership has been to get the country to a point of stability where it can maintain itself, a condition enabled by low levels of violence, the maturity of Iraqi forces and political structures. So infinitely improved security is not required, just something that's good enough; the 'good enough' being the tough call.

 

[Art]

Logically true. However, the goal of US leadership has been to get the country to a point of stability where it can maintain itself, a condition enabled by low levels of violence, the maturity of Iraqi forces and political structures. So infinitely improved security is not required, just something that's good enough; the 'good enough' being the tough call.

So what response is now required following the upsurge in violence since January? Up 33% month on month. Another even bigger troop surge?

The purpose of the original surge was to create a window to allow for reconciliation but as recently as today Sunni's and some Shias refused to attend a reconciliation meeting and the Kurds still will not agree on an oil revenue sharing deal with the rest of Iraq.

The whole situation seems as hopeless as ever.

 

[mheslep]

So what response is now required following the upsurge in violence since January? Up 33% month on month. Another even bigger troop surge?

The purpose of the original surge was to create a window to allow for reconciliation but as recently as today Sunni's and some Shias refused to attend a reconciliation meeting and the Kurds still will not agree on an oil revenue sharing deal with the rest of Iraq.

The whole situation seems as hopeless as ever.

? Last year Feb violence was almost 6x worse.

 

[turbo]

? Last year Feb violence was almost 6x worse.

Last year, the ethnic cleansing was far from complete. This year, many districts are controlled and populated predominantly by one sect or another, and many minority families driven from their homes are internally displaced or are refugees located in neighboring countries. In addition, al Sadr unilaterally ordered his militias to stand down over 6 months ago. That certainly helped scale back the violence, too. There are a lot of complications driving the dynamic of ethnic violence, and once ethnic violence ramps down, clashes between militant factions and US forces decrease, as well.

 

[edward]

The Awakening Councils are being given some credit. Since they are financed by the Pentagon anyway this idea probably could have been used instead of the surge.

The fighters of the Sunni Awakening are nearly 80,000 strong, paid for by the Pentagon, and independent of the Iraqi government. The Awakening Councils started in Anbar Province more than a year ago but really took off after the surge, and now scores of groups have effectively taken responsibility for law and order in their neighborhoods.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4109560&page=1

Then again for $300 per month we may just be paying them not to shoot at us as many of them had been doing previously.

A retired general who lives in Tucson was interviewed on a local PBS program last night.
He claimed that we are paying some of the sect leaders big money to keep them on our side.

The one thing we can't seem to buy in Iraq is Democracy.

 

[Art]

? Last year Feb violence was almost 6x worse.

For a time following an adjustment to US tactics the violence diminished month on month but as ever the insurgents are learning to adapt with the result that so far this year the level of violence has begun to escalate again.

On Monday when Cheney visited Baghdad over 60 civilians were killed in bomb blasts in Iraq. He himself was surrounded by bodyguards throughout his visit which never extended outside of the green zone which received 2 incoming mortars during the few hours he was there.

If this represents success in Iraq then it only goes to highlight just how dire the situation was previously.

 

[mheslep]

..The one thing we can't seem to buy in Iraq is Democracy.

There's been plenty of democracy since 2005 with millions turning out to vote. What's lacking is security and stability.

 

[mheslep]

Back to the OP topic - a possible attack on Iran.

Quick, who said:

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything.
...
[Iran's] president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/u...html?pagewanted=5&_r=2&sq=aipac&st=nyt&scp=3"

 

[turbo]

didn't need the link. that was Obama at AIPAC. I try to keep up.

 

[Evo]

Obama does say he wil try increased diplomacy first so that he will have the support of the US and the world if it comes to an attack.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.

(APPLAUSE)

Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation, but that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed and will have far greater support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/u....html?pagewanted=6&_r=2&sq=aipac&st=nyt&scp=3

 

[mheslep]

Obama does say he wil try increased diplomacy first so that he will have the support of the US and the world if it comes to an attack.

It may, it very well may not. What historical precedent leads you to believe that increased diplomacy, that fails, will then produce support in the US and the world? There's evidence from the Iraq war build up that diplomacy, with the leverage of sanctions as the Senator has declared he wants, can reduce support. Sanctions invariably have the side effect of harming common people inside the country, so one can count on a backlash.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's evidence from the Iraq war build up that diplomacy, with the leverage of sanctions as the Senator has declared he wants, can reduce support.

If you start an unjustified war on false premises and promises and with poor planning, that can reduce support for the effort. The support for the Iraq War has little to do with any disingenuous and aborted attempt at diplomacy, nor does it have much to do with the ineffectiveness of sanctions.

 

[turbo]

Now we have an Israeli minister characterizing an Israeli air attack on Iran as "unavoidable". If they attack Iran, that will give Bush and Cheney the additional war that they are drooling over. This is my biggest fear - that Israel will act unilaterally and that the neocons who control US policy will commit our carrier groups to pounding Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/wl_nm/israel_iran_mofaz_dc;_ylt=AnsWPX3p2M_NoaOgx1HQ8LWs0NUE

 

[seycyrus]

If you start an unjustified war on false premises and promises and with poor planning, .

Put that cart back behind the horse where it belongs.

The discussion is about the events leading *up to* a conflict with Iran. To compare it with your 20/20 hindsight of your version of what happened in Iraq is disingenuous.

Sanctions have historically been shown to reduce popular support.

 

[seycyrus]

This is my biggest fear - that Israel will act unilaterally

Yes Iran has stated that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel has stated that it will not let Iran have the means to do so.

That it is why it is IMPERATIVE that we stop playing apologist for Iran, and demand that they fully comply with the IAEA.

 

[turbo]

Yes Iran has stated that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel has stated that it will not let Iran have the means to do so.

That it is why it is IMPERATIVE that we stop playing apologist for Iran, and demand that they fully comply with the IAEA.

According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years. They are not running a weapons program. Israel is running the same scam that Bush ran on Iraq. Accuse them of something (WMDs, whatever) and then threaten to attack unless they can PROVE they are not. As it turns out Iraq was telling the truth and our president and his cronies were lying. We should take no more human lives on the word of war-mongers.

 

[turbo]

BTW, our own NIE says that Iran stopped their military nuclear program 5 years ago in 2003. Bush and Cheney held up the release of the NIE because they badly want a new war and the NIE did not support their trumped-up "intelligence". Anyone with a memory will recognize this tactic being used to start the Iraq war

 

[seycyrus]

BTW, our own NIE says that Iran stopped their military nuclear program 5 years ago in 2003.

No, it claims that they stopped the one specific program that was being looked at.

the one that the Iranians said *never* existed.

 

[seycyrus]

According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2008/ebsp2008n005.html#iran

Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, june 2 2008

"However, it is regrettable that we have not made the progress we had hoped for with respect to the one remaining major issue, namely clarification of the cluster of allegations and Secretariat questions relevant to possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme."

...

"Iran maintains that it has never had a nuclear weapons programme and that the documents related to these alleged studies are "forged" or "fabricated"

...

"However, Iran has not yet agreed to implement all the transparency measures required to clarify this cluster of allegations and questions. Iran has not provided the Agency with all the access to documents and to individuals requested by the Secretariat, nor has Iran provided the substantive explanations required to support its statements."



I could go on ...

Your definition of compliance needs some revision.

 

[turbo]

The IAEA was suggesting that allegations of planning for a weapons program could be on-going. That's about as flimsy as it gets. If the IAEA had demanded that level of transparency (or even a far, far lesser level) from our own government or Israels, they'd have been told where to shove that demand. Apparently, there is very drastically contrasting double-standard in play.

Iran has offered to partner with foreign nuclear states to allow them to oversee commercial enrichment on Iranian soil, but you don't hear about that in the US press. Nevertheless, the neo-cons and Israel want to engage the US in yet another war, and they have a compliant population of gullible people willing them to let them have it.

 

[mheslep]

From the 26 May IAEA Board Report:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

28. ... Substantive explanations are required from Iran to support its statements on the alleged studies and on other information with a possible military dimension...

29. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of both new cascades and of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR–40 reactor.

30. The Director General urges Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, including the Additional Protocol, at the earliest possible date.

 

[turbo]

Enemies of Iran make allegations, and then the IAEA demands that Iran PROVE that their enrichment programs are for peaceful purposes. This cannot be done. You cannot prove a negative.

Our own NIE claims that Iran stopped their enrichment program in 2003. Saber-rattlers say otherwise, and their track record (how many people dead and wounded in Iraq) should make you doubt them. We don't need more needless deaths based on lies.

 

[seycyrus]

The IAEA was suggesting that allegations of planning for a weapons program could be on-going.

No, that part referred to the fact that it *should* be ongoing.


"...concerns about Iran´s future intentions go well beyond verification and require agreement on confidence and security-building measures."

*require*

The entire ensemble statements from the IAEA clearly show that they are not satisfied with Iran's level of compliance.

Your reinterpretation of what the IAEA *really* means is stretching thinner and thinner.

If the IAEA had demanded that level of transparency (or even a far, far lesser level) from our own government or Israels,

Regarding what aspect of *what* program?

Note, Israel is not a signatory...

Nevertheless, the neo-cons...

Do you get a nickel every time you use that word?

 

[mheslep]

...Iran has offered to partner with foreign nuclear states to allow them to oversee commercial enrichment on Iranian soil, but you don't hear about that in the US press.

Because it never happened