Does Iran have WMDs, too?
May. 1st, 2007 11:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusOur government releases a report that Iran is 'one of' the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism. Uh-huh. Do they have WMDs too?
Golly. And lookie here. There just so happens to be a debate on the war and war funding at the precise moment this report is released. Purely a coincidence, no doubt.
What's the phrase? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....
ETA: Oh, I like this scotch tape move. The report mentions Iran sponsoring terrorism. Then it mentions most of the terrorism is happening in Iraq. Then it leaves people to assume where Iran is sponsoring terrorism without actually saying so. Ha. Dick Cheney just wants to bomb Iran.
Golly. And lookie here. There just so happens to be a debate on the war and war funding at the precise moment this report is released. Purely a coincidence, no doubt.
What's the phrase? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....
ETA: Oh, I like this scotch tape move. The report mentions Iran sponsoring terrorism. Then it mentions most of the terrorism is happening in Iraq. Then it leaves people to assume where Iran is sponsoring terrorism without actually saying so. Ha. Dick Cheney just wants to bomb Iran.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 07:28 pm (UTC)And I dunno. Smart as we think we ourselves are, that report will probably do a lot of crap before years later people go OMG WTF WAS THAT SHIT.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 07:47 pm (UTC)The "we found Iranian weapon parts on terrorists!" didn't get anywhere. It was met with silence.
An interview with former the U.S. commander in Iraq, General Abizaid, tried to lead him in the direction of claiming Iran was sponsoring the attacks on U.S. troops. He flat out refused to say it, said, "There is no evidence linking Iran to these attacks" and began to explain the complicated political situation in Iraq. He was removed from his post by the Bush administration afterward.
Americans are tired of this war. They look at the idea of starting another war with Iran with a kind of wide-eyed surprise, "Shouldn't we finish the one we've got, first?"
Both sides of the fence feel helpless about the whole mess. Everyone agrees it's a mess. The divisions are over what to do about it. Do we give it up as a bad job, or do we stick around and try to fix it?
The U.S. declared months ago (I think in January) that we'd bomb Iran in April if the Iranians didn't fold over our complaints about their nuclear power. That deadline's come and gone. Cheney just can't get the country behind it. And he won't.
I suspect that Cheney knows that we're leaving Iraq and he's afraid that all our efforts to create a permanent U.S. stronghold in the middle east will be for nothing, and instead we'll have handed the entire country and its oil reserves over to Iran. So he wants to find an excuse to cripple Iran before we go.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:23 pm (UTC)Cheney's trying to make a case for bombing Iran. Has been trying to make a case since December/January. In fact, part of the "troop surge" has been in the form of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines that can't do a damned thing for the Iraq war. But they'd be very handy in bombing Iran.
Cheney can't get permission for a new war from congress, no way in hell, so he has to somehow tie it to the Iraq war.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:30 pm (UTC)oil! Bush and his cronies want it and will try any means necessary to get their hands on it - even it means using our military to illegaly invade another country *check*, prolonging it to the point that the majority of the American people don't think about it anymore *check*, distract the US population from the realities of war by filling our newscasts with useless bits about some celebrity's life *lots of little check marks* and then will proceed to try to maneuver to gain a foot hold in the rest of the 'oil rich world' *currently in progress*
gah! and no, I don't want us to go to Iran, in fact I want us to get the fuck out of Iraq (excuse my french) - why? well, it's simple - I really have no desire for my hubby to go back over there...which may be happing anyway...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:38 pm (UTC)I know that the demand for oil has spiked because of the unexpected economic boom and modernization in China (as well as India, but China especially). That's part of what's driving up oil prices: demand. I'm beginning to suspect that the oil companies have done some projections they haven't shared (because we'd start pouring ethanol in cars if we knew) and realize we're going to run out of oil a lot faster than when they predicted back in the 70s.
Makes me want to become oil independent.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:50 pm (UTC)then we'll get thrown into chaos as people rush to hoard all the gas and oil that they can and as the oil companies die in a painful stock dry up (taking with it all auto manufacturers as none of them have a completely oil product free vehicle [unless they're not telling us that is]) and then the market economy will slump further....
...not to mention all the other companies that will suddenly have their business come to a screeching halt because they will no longer be able to distribute their goods (air, ground and even train [because they're all disesl] transports will dry up)...
...not to mention the social upheveal as trucks no longer can bring in food to the masses and as that becomes scarce...well, by that point I hope to be living in the hills somewhere
lovely picture I just painted isn't it?
(btw, if any of my statements are not true, feel free to point out my errors)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:53 pm (UTC)Oh, I see your point. I'm not buying the claim that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. I'd like to see the measures used in determining that.
It's too convenient given the timing.
We have a defense spending bill in congress, with demands for a timeline for withdrawal.
Earlier this year the Bush administration threatened to bomb Iran if it didn't back up on its nuclear operations by April.
Then there are elements of our "troop surge" that aren't useful for the Iraq war (as pointed out by Yeltsin a couple months ago, though I'd already heard from
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 09:01 pm (UTC)I wasn't trying to be cute. Iran does sponsor terrorism. This is something you ought to be able to admit even if you disagree with the solutions you think Cheney is thinking of. As for the "measures", it's not the bleedin' Olympics. Iran is one of the major worldwide terrorism sponsors, for a number of reasons including being a Shia country trying to gain the ascendent in a predominantly Sunni Moslem world.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 09:58 pm (UTC)And really. I'm making a point here, which I think is valid. The emphasis is because I'm disappointed that people don't seem to be able to disentangle the facts from the politics. It's perfectly valid to disagree with policies. Claiming the facts don't exist or don't matter, now, that's another thing. It would have been nicer to have an answer on these.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:22 pm (UTC)If they're smart, they're not advertising it, unlike say, China or Korea who are into bullying. Or they could simply be working on biological wmd's as those are so much easier to hide and transport. Perhaps instead of 'destruction' the word should be 'annihilation' and the acronym 'wma' as the annihilation of anyone other than themselves is the goal.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:51 pm (UTC)We don't have a leg to stand on with Iran. This is the fault of our foreign policy.
We threatened to bomb Iran by April because of their nuclear program. An Isreali inspection of their facilities yielded no evidence that they were building nuclear bombs, and in fact, they were using the wrong type of nuclear material to do so.
The U.S. recently recognized India's nuclear energy program despite the fact that India refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty for decades, even testing nuclear weapons. (Some of India's planned nuclear program can be used to create nuclear weapons.)
Iran did sign the nonproliferation treaty, never tested nuclear weapons, and now they want their own nuclear energy program. They want to be treated like India, especially since they've played ball in the nuclear game all along.
Whether we like Iran or not, based on our screwed up foreign policy -- they're in the right. We have a double-standard for our allies and our foes, and are now stuck with the hypocrisy.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 11:07 pm (UTC)Or... we can celebrate our success by instituting Stop Loss measures, increase the duration of soldiers' stays in Iraq, cut back on training, shorten breaks, use Air Force personnel for Army positions, lower the standards for recruitment, and float ideas like issuing green cards for foreigners who join the U.S. military. You know. Because we've won.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 11:10 pm (UTC)In which science-fiction movie would Israelis be allowed anywhere near Iranian nuclear plants? Iran even refused Israeli aid after the Bom earthquake! Don't you mean an IAEA inspection?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 11:21 pm (UTC)This I gotta see
Date: 2007-05-01 11:31 pm (UTC)Re: This I gotta see
Date: 2007-05-02 12:54 am (UTC)Icarus
Re: This I gotta see
Date: 2007-05-02 02:39 am (UTC)Thanks!
Re: This I gotta see
Date: 2007-05-02 02:41 am (UTC)