Patience with Iran

You know things are off kilter when the Wall Street Journal supports industrial strikes, including a general strike by workers and merchants, but in yesterday's edition the paper did so, albeit in the context of Iran:

Oil workers, bus drivers and the bazaar guilds are mulling a general strike. ... Ahmadinejad can't seem to get traction for a second term. The so-called Green Revolution hardly looks to be over. Which raises a quandary: Why is Washington rushing to confer U.S. and international prestige on a regime that doesn't enjoy legitimacy among its own people?

It's true that the Green Wave in support of former Prime Minister Mousavi and his allies isn't over. Today, in Tehran, tens of thousands of Mousavi supporters gathered to hear Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafansjani deliver the Friday prayer sermon at Tehran University, where they were once again met with violence by the security forces.

But, like its right-wing confreres and, sadly, many human rights activists, the Journal opposes President Obama's insistent effort to deal with Iran diplomatically, including over its nuclear program. Yet Obama's policy, reiterated this week by Secretary of State Clinton, isn't about "rushing" to give legitimacy to Ahmadinejad. Rather than diplomatic isolation, more sanctions, military pressure, and war, Obama is offering to bring Iran into the community of nations. It's precisely that strategy that invigorated the opposition in Iran, who saw Mousavi as a vehicle for ending Iran's isolation and for dealing respectfully with the United States on the basis of mutual interests. During my visit to Iran in June, countless Iranians told me exactly that, from ordinary voters to Mousavi campaign officials. And by offering to talk to Iran -- and by making important gestures, such as the release this week of five imprisoned Revolutionary Guard "diplomats" captured in northern Iraq two years ago -- the United States is confusing the hardliners in Iran, who much prefer the bellicose bluster of George W. "Great Satan" Bush to Obama's more unsettling approach.

The radical right in the West, and the neoconservatives, are still spreading alarmism about Iran's nuclear program. The latest effort to do so was in Stern magazine in Germany, a notoriously unreliable publication which reported that Iran was on the brink of building a nuclear bomb, citing German intelligence:

Germany's BND foreign intelligence agency believes Iran is capable of producing and testing an atomic bomb within six months, much sooner than most analysts estimate, according to a report in the German weekly "Stern."

The report, which quotes BND experts, says the agency has information supporting the view that Iran has mastered the enrichment technology necessary to make a bomb and has enough centrifuges to make weaponized uranium.

"If they wanted to, they could detonate an atomic bomb in half a year's time," the story quoted a BND expert as saying.

This, of course, is nonsense. Iran has not an ounce of highly enriched uranium (HEU), having stockpiled only a limited quantity of fuel-grade, low enriched uranium (LEU) . To build a bomb, Iran would have to refine all of its current stockpile of LEU to have enough HEU to build one (yes, one) bomb. Then they would have zero enriched uranium left, no bomb, and a vastly hostile world surrounding them. It isn't known if Iran knows how to do any of this, and if they did, it would take place in the full view of the IAEA inspectors, who monitor Iran's uranium stockpiles. It's also doubtful that Iran's scientists have mastered the process of exactly how to build a bomb. Anyway, the next day the German BND pooh-poohed the Stern report, reports Bloomberg:

Germany's top spy agency said Iran could have an atomic bomb within four to six years, playing down a report in Stern magazine that the government in Tehran could detonate a nuclear device within six months.

The German prediction is in line with a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007, a spokesman for Germany's BND intelligence agency said today in a telephone interview.

There's no reason to be alarmed about Iran's nukes. The world has plenty of time to deal with that problem. (Even the Mossad now says that Iran won't have a bomb until 2014 at the earliest, according to Haaretz.)

Obama, Clinton, and the G-8 have each said that talks with Iran ought to begin by September, when the United Nations begins its new session and the G-8 (or G-20) meets again. Perhaps they will. But the situation inside Iran is very fluid, and if things are still unsettled there in a few months time, Iran may be in no position to engage in serious talks. In the meantime, there's no sense in setting ominous deadlines for the start of those talks -- or, for that matter, for their successful conclusion, which could take many months or years. One thing is certain: Iran's leaders have had their confidence badly shaken. They are no longer feared as the Shiite cowboys riding a wave of Shiite radicalism into the Middle East and the Arab world. Instead, the tide has turned. The wave is against them, and it's bright green. Time is no longer on the side of the mullahs.

Comments (119)

1. "(Even the Mossad now says that Iran won't have a bomb until 2014 at the earliest, according to Haaretz.) "

   Well, obviously the Mossad are a bunch of pinko peacenik Kumbaya-singing hippies who want to see Tel Aviv nuked as Ahmadinejad WILL do within weeks if "something" isn't done.

   NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN!!!!!!!!!

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 08:06am

2. I don't buy any of it.... Iran will have the bomb sooner than later and earlier than anyone today believes...

   and the mullahs aren't going anywhere...they have the guns and their Arab police forces to enforce the "will of Allah" on the masses...

   and once they get the bomb there will be no change in govt in Tehran or attitude towards the rest of the world....and no, they do not fear Obama or the US any more..they know we pussyed out again...and gave them and the world ...another Jimmy Carter who, left to his own choices will do the dirty work for them...and destroy the US economy from with in..

   It is the next guy who comes into power here who will have to clean up the US mess along with the economy,and he may well be feared.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 07/17/2009 @ 10:57am

3. Dreyfuss: can you clarify why you think that "time is no longer on the side of the Mullahs"? Do you imagine that Moussavi/Rafsanji "opposition" movement is about changing the fundamental way that Iran is governed? Both of these figures - the leaders of the "opposition" - are previous hardline Islamic revolutionaries, who have stood the line on anti-Western, pro-theocracy policies, and both of these figures have close, long relationships with Ayatollahs and Mullahs in general.

   Posted by syfriendly at 07/17/2009 @ 11:02am

4. Gates thinks you're all wet! Think "Clear and present Danger"

   " Iran's nuclear ambitions are the greatest current threat to global security, according to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

   "Iran is the one that concerns me the most because there don't seem to be good options (or a scenario) where one can have any optimism that good options will be found," Gates told the Economic Club of Chicago.

   The threat rests not only in Iran's apparent determination to seek a nuclear weapon, but in the "inability of the international community to affect their determination to do that," Gates said.

   "All of the outcomes are negative," he said. "If they achieve one, the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is very, very real.

   "If something is done to prevent them from getting one, the consequences of that are completely unpredictable and frankly, very bad."

   Gates says he has struggled to convince other nations, particularly Russia, that the Iranian situation does not simply threaten the United States.

   "Iran's going to have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to the people in their region a lot sooner than they're going to have the capability to deliver them to us," he added. "

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:08am

5. The so called "Green Movement" only got the cheer it did because the silent majority had no other choice given to them.

   Now things have moved a long way. The recent videos will tell you how no one wears green. The people are trampling over the sacred prayers, because the people are putting Iran over and above Islam.

   The TV networks did not televise the Friday Show today. That has never happened. There is panic in the Khamenei camp.

   People are wearing white now.

   Posted by alimostofi at 07/17/2009 @ 11:09am

6. And on the topic of Iran's nuclear program, there is absolutely no Western power that would ever need to fear Iran engaging in some first strike. The leadership in Iran is aware that if their nuclear materials were ever used against the West, Iran would be destroyed by an overwhelming counterstrike. Placing the West aside, Iran also is aware that Israel has an arsenal of hundreds of modern nuclear weapons, and has no first strike plans against Israel.

   I personally suspect that Iran, if it is seeking nuclear weapons, wants a deterrent to protected itself against the crazy militarists in Israel who have their modern nuclear arsenal, and wants a deterrent to eliminate any future Iran-Iraq type conflicts. Iran/Persia has not started a war against a foreign power in centuries. They are, however, a target for US and Israeli militarists, probably the biggest and most central target of the US and Israeli militarists in the world today. They may want a way to defend themselves.

   This is completely understandable.

   Posted by syfriendly at 07/17/2009 @ 11:13am

7. hey - this is some good stuff...

   the anarcho-libertarian, satano-aynrando, decepti-cons will sell editorial opinion...

   FOR LOTS OF MONEY!!!!

   http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinions-for-sale/

   check out the"heritege foundation's" two million doallar deal with fed-ex or their sudden turn-around in regard to their position on the malaysian gubbament...

   and the controlls criticize the journalistic creds of TN writers...

   Posted by dexter666 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:17am

8. I think Dreyfus needs to have a conversation with a friend of mine who has just visited her relatives in Iran....and he would scrap his article..

   Posted by YourJomamma at 07/17/2009 @ 11:18am

9. RD needs to realise that the only way to save Iran is to do exactly what WSJ and many other sources are recommending - namely helping Iranians have a non-violent general strike.

   We need to have people writing about the merits of threatening the mullahs with a General Strike. The mullahs must realise that the people can bring Iran to a swift standstill if they wanted to.

   The power of a General Strike counters any bullets that the Theocrats want to use against the secular people of Iran. Please help us, by not negotiating with these people who do not put Iran first.

   Posted by alimostofi at 07/17/2009 @ 11:23am

10. and the controlls criticize the journalistic creds of TN writers...

    Posted by dexter666 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    hee hee...its one thing to sell ad space. TN does that...i've seen all sorts of ads here, including spots for anne coulter, et all...

    but the conservative establishments references by the krugman editorial...

    SELL EDITORIAL OPINION FOR COLD HARD CASH!!!!

    oh these are amongst the most beloved of my dark majesty!!! such PREDICTABLE AVARICE!!!

    i mean, i send old MAMMON up there to round up souls and with them hardline american "conservatives" ITS LIKE TAKING CANDY FROM A BLOATED BABY!!!

    i mean, you'd expect some schmuk on the verge of losing his house to sell his soul to me for some cash - which is why some contracts are indeed invalid...

    but let me tell you...flash a little cash or some hot young, forbidden tail in front of one of these PARAGONS OF MORALITY and watch the hellbound push each other to the ground as they gleefully dole out their souls for a first class ticket straight to HELL!!!!!

    I LOVE THE AMERICAN RIGHT!!!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:33am

11. "I don't buy any of it.... Iran will have the bomb sooner than later and earlier than anyone today believes.."---Posted by YourJomamma at 07/17/2009 @ 10:57am

    So Israel should stop trusting The Mossad and start trusting...

    The Maasch??!??!?!!?!

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 11:44am

12. So Israel should stop trusting The Mossad and start trusting...

    The Maasch??!??!?!!?!

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 11:44am

    Israel will be fine Mask...but for sure Israel has learned another lesson....

    Israel can not trust this administration...and had better be prepared to go it alone until we dump the current cabal in Washington...which will happen but not after serious damage has been done and will take generations to fix.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/17/2009 @ 11:58am

13. yourjomamma-Dumping one DC cabal for another has never accomplished much in the past and when we get a new POTUS and congress nothing will change then,either.Israel does not know if they can trust any administration anymore than we know if we can trust our own or another countries administration.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2009 @ 12:06pm

14. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Iran already has a functional nuclear weapon...pretend they bought it, used, from Pakistan.

    So what?

    On whom could they use it?

    Why would we care?

    What would make them any less a laughing stock in terms of real threat potential than NK?

    Do we believe they're unaware of the ICBMs in our arsenal?

    The sooner we can provide power without fossil fuels, the sooner we can leave these Khoran-thumping mullahs to play in their dirt.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/17/2009 @ 12:34pm

15. Posted by dexter666 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:17am |

    Hey now...that's Larry's tax advisor prime you're picking on!

    "We've already established WHAT you are; now we're just haggling for price!" - Bertrand Russell

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/17/2009 @ 12:37pm

16. But John, apparently YOU know more about the "real" time-line of an Iranian nuke than....

    the Mossad?!??!!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 12:40pm

17. I was beginning to think the neocons had got to you, Mr. Dreyfuss. Thanks for redeeming yourself.

    Posted by DejaVu at 07/17/2009 @ 12:59pm

18. Yes, this regime does appear in trouble. Heard or read somewhere yesterday, the head of Iran's nuclear program resigned a couple of weeks ago. There is clearly a split among the "mullahs" but what the splits are and who is for what isn't clear. Rafsanjani is no radical and Mousavi hasn't been either. It would help the aim of these are and what they see the future of this Iran to be.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 07/17/2009 @ 1:56pm

19. Dreyfuss' piece forgets one important element: Israel. If Iran is so weakened, why is Israel sailing war ships through the Suez, conducting massive war drills with its air force in Denver and spiking its purchase of weapons for long distance strikes from the US?

    Dreyfuss also puts too much confidence in the Green wave. It remains an upper class creature. Rafsanjani is a billionaire trying to save his hide, him and Mousavi in no way represent a "Green threat" to Iran's system, that is pretty laughable.

    Posted by Communard115 at 07/17/2009 @ 2:29pm

20. Exactly!!!Maybe "the nation" should pay more attention to what is really going on?

    "Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal ten days after a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

    The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice. It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean.

    Israel has strengthened ties with Arab nations who also fear a nuclear-armed Iran. In particular, relations with Egypt have grown increasingly strong this year over the "shared mutual distrust of Iran", according to one Israeli diplomat. Israeli naval vessels would likely pass through the Suez Canal for an Iranian strike.

    "This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These manoeuvres are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats," an Israeli defence official said. "

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 2:37pm

21. But John, apparently YOU know more about the "real" time-line of an Iranian nuke than....

    the Mossad?!??!!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 12:40pm

    It is entirely possible...

    ... that if antisocialist can be more intensely briefed than was McNamara,

    ergo,

    JoMamma's juice on this could exceed that of Mossad.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/17/2009 @ 2:40pm

22. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. Please read:

    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-35.pdf

    The missing information in this report is the scarriest: Iran's heavy water reactor was off limits to the IAEA inspectors. Heavy water reactors use NON-ENRICHED uranium (then why do they have so many enrichment centrifuges, especially when the international community has offered to GIVE the Iranians uranium fuel?) Also, heavy water reactors are usually used as "breeder reactors", this means while they use up uranium as fuel, they create more plutonium than they use uranium 235. Why did the IAEA not find any plutonium residue with the uranium samples at the enrichment centrifuges?

    As far as "first strike capability", who thinks they are going to put the warhead on a missle? They have not reliably proven they can even get a missile to Isreal. What is FAR more likely is a warhead given to Hamas to be brought in my land.

    Posted by theMage at 07/17/2009 @ 4:01pm

23. Re-Post to an "Iran" thread

    ================

    Police tear-gas Iran protesters during prayer By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 2 mins ago - Excerpt

    Happy - your take on this?

    Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:49am

    My "take" is that anybody would be better than AhmaDineinYourJeans....like the Left's 8-yrs' worth of "anybody would be better than Bush/cheney" leading to the rapidly forming disaster that is Obama!

    This being my "take", reinforced by the macro factors I pasted in that sanctions won't be effective (nor universal due to China's sure-veto), the only way we can have a chance to alter Iran's trajectory, is to help Ahmad into retirement. That means, we provide NO support or recognition of any kind of to the present regime until the dust settles....that is, either till AhmaDineinYourJeans crushes the opposition or he resigns.

    That will also help Israel to think clearly of its own, more vital self-interests w/out the US/Magic trying to butter up to Ahmad.

    Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 2:53pm

    Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 4:53pm

24. I think Dreyfus needs to have a conversation with a friend of mine who has just visited her relatives in Iran....and he would scrap his article..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/17/2009 @ 11:18am

    It sounds like Dreyfus knows plenty of people in Iran and still wrote the article. I don't think your friend carries any more weight than his friends. It's funny when people assume because they know ONE person in a country that gives them the authority to make vast assertions about the country as a whole. I don't know if you noticed but people in other countries also have different opinions on situations.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:19pm

25. until we dump the current cabal in Washington..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/17/2009 @ 11:58am

    yep, y'all need a new cabal.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:43am

26. I think Israel is posturing. It doesn't want a war with Iran, Russia and probably China, which will happen if they bomb Iran. These guys need Iran's oil, too. No, Israel is getting ready to attack the US, 9/11 style and will get US to fight their war. But it still has to keep up appearances so they can say that Iran was behind the "attack" since they (Iran) were going to be attacked (by Israel) anyway.... Keep the duct tape handy, folks.

    Posted by DejaVu at 07/18/2009 @ 12:42pm

27. It is entirely possible...

    ... that if antisocialist can be more intensely briefed than was McNamara,

    ergo,

    JoMamma's juice on this could exceed that of Mossad.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/17/2009 @ 2:40pm

    It's not nice to lie. I never said that. I said "it's what you do with the intelligence".

    <Larry, who got more briefings on Vietnam during the war...

    you or Robert McNamara?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:18pm

    Irrelevant. It's what you do with the information.

    McNamara never fought to win the war. He betrayed the troops as did Nixon and Kissinger.

    McNamara's post war mea culpa merely means the man had no core beliefs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 3:48pm>

    http://tinyurl.com/lee95q

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:18pm

28. McNamara never fought to win the war. He betrayed the troops as did Nixon and Kissinger.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:18pm

    satan's preacher strikes again!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:22pm

29. McNamara never fought to win the war. He betrayed the troops as did Nixon and Kissinger.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:18pm

    satan's preacher strikes again!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:22pm

    You're an idiot at times FZ. Friends of mine that I grew up with died there because of McNamara's incompetence.

    You are typical of those who insult all that they did and died for. It's what causes bitterness and resentment of radical leftists like yourself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:25pm

30. Gates says he has struggled to convince other nations, particularly Russia, that the Iranian situation does not simply threaten the United States.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:08am

    there's a good reason for that. Gates testified before the Senate that he has no evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes, but is basing his beliefs on a gut feeling that he can't explain. Is it any surprise that if he he can;t explain it to the senate, he sure as hell can't explain it to the Russians?

    The other fact to consider is that the Russians know when we are lying. They knew we lied about Saddam's tanks amassed on the border with Saudi Arabia before Desert Storm and they know we are lying about Iran.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/18/2009 @ 11:20pm

31. The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Israeli ships can do diddly squat to Iran without their own air force, who need US and Iraqi government permission to use Iraqi air space and be able to get to Iran.

    Even then, Israel hasn't got the firepower or the cahones to attack Israel and finish the job on their own. The lunatics running Israel are hoping that they can incite a response from Iran and drag the US into a wider war.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/18/2009 @ 11:22pm

32. You are typical of those who insult all that they did and died for. It's what causes bitterness and resentment of radical leftists like yourself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:25pm

    First, they did and died for nothing.

    Secondly, those who are bitterness and resentment of leftists are the radical right, and they are irrelevant.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/18/2009 @ 11:24pm

33. You're an idiot at times FZ. Friends of mine that I grew up with died there because of McNamara's incompetence.

    •• no, they died because of the greed of others.

    You are typical of those who insult all that they did and died for.

    •• i will always insult greed.

    It's what causes bitterness and resentment of radical leftists like yourself.

    ••  radical leftist? i am far more conservative than you. do you know what conserve means?

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:25pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 11:25pm

34. "McNamara never fought to win the war. He betrayed the troops as did Nixon and Kissinger."

    antisocialist is entirely correct in this assertion. If you don't believe me, then... ask RICHARD NIXON! He is repeatedly heard on the Nixon tapes openly admitting that he had no intention at all of winning the Vietnam war; in fact, he personally doubted if it even was winnable and he knew it could not be won in any case at a cost that would be acceptable to the American people. He tried to have it both ways: he appealed to reluctant antiwarriors and middle Americans who felt resentment towards young anti-war protestors who burnt American flags by promising to have a secret, undisclosed plan to end the war by PROSECUTING it; he was elected on a pledge to disclose it but, of course, it was never revealed because it never existed. In private conversations, Nixon said that all he wanted to do was rig the situation so that South Vietnam would collapse in a year or two following American withdrawal, so that his spin doctors could say it lasted for years after we left and would have survived longer if only for the incompetence of the South Vietnamese government (which we installed and slaughtered millions in the name of). Nixon's only ambition was to lose the Vietnam war in the most politically expedient way possible, using the protest and unrest in civil society that it spawned as a wedge issue to win reelection, and simply telling the public whatever it had to be told until we lost, on terms that he said represented "peace with honor". He did not WANT to win the war, and, in private conversations on the subject, he was willing to admit it.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/18/2009 @ 11:27pm

35. "They knew we lied about Saddam's tanks amassed on the border with Saudi Arabia before Desert Storm"

    On the other hand, Shingo, there is something that they didn't know back then, and that WE didn't know until after our bombing of Iraq during the first Gulf War destroyed it: we found evidence that Saddam was only a few months away from a Hiroshima-style bomb until we destroyed his capability to produce one. The Saudis, by the way, TOLD us they felt threatened by Saddam, and given that Saddam had just killed 1.5 million Iraqis and Iranians and then gone on to rape Kuwait and THEN unbelievably gone on to vow to take on the US, Britain, Syria, France, and the whole of the UN in the "battle of the century" over his perceived right to kill and torture and enslave and exterminate any Kuwaiti he felt like tormenting, their fear was understandable. And if it had been up to you, Saddam would still be in power today. He would be torturing people to death in concentration camps TODAY, in Iraq and Kuwait, which would be one and the same. He would be able to nuke a couple hundred thousand people to death at any moment, right now, TODAY. He would have all the weapons needed to embark on a campaign of genocide, as he did multiple times in the past. The people of Kuwait would not be enjoying free speech, a high standard of living, freedom, good nutrition, high rates of literacy, and life expectancy without comparison to that which is found anywhere in the Middle East save for Israel and Turkey. They would be living in constant fear, degradation, torment, misery, agony, slavery. They would be subjected to mass killings, torture, murder, slaughterhouses, concentration camps, dungeons, and killing fields. You didn't have your way then, but you did later that year, in 1991...

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/18/2009 @ 11:54pm

36. ...didn't you? All but three of Iraq's provinces had been taken over by force by the people of Iraq in a mass rebellion because the US had the opportunity to immobilize all of Saddam's aircraft and to destroy the capability of his army before his regime could reconsolidate itself. But we didn't. We vowed not to push on to Baghdad. We pledged no aid to the rebels. We gave Saddam his aircraft, his army, all the weapons he needed to kill anyone he wanted. We said we were neutral, that Iraq would be a "quagmire" if we went in. So Saddam killed all the rebels, created an atmosphere of fear to reassert authority and quell dissent by embarking on a campaign of genocide; and he brutally murdered 300,000 innocent men, women, and children; and he buried them all in mass graves still being unearthed to this day. AND AS HE DID SO, you thought to yourself "thank God that sanity prevailed over the mad neo-cons," and you sang songs in celebration, and said we should all just learn to GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, didn't you? And then you said let's contain him, and so sanctions that resulted in no deaths where the UN administered the oil-for-food program killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the places where Saddam administered it. And you blamed America for the deaths, didn't you? But they really died so that Saddam could smuggle tons of food and medical supplies out on a black-market to raise slush funds to build large palaces, fund suicide bombers in Israel, and bargain covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD (he had paid for WMD from North Korea and was told he would receive it until North Korea suddenly got cold feet after the coalition began preparing to invade and Iraq and North Korea were named both as part of an "Axis of Evil" that also included Iran).

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 12:27am

37. And we didn't know about his deals with North Korea until we uncovered documentation of their diplomatic dialogue AFTER the invasion, did we? And we also found evidence proving, according to the Duelfer Report, that Saddam of course was going to restart his own WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which was why he manipulated the oil-for-food program to starve hundreds of thousands of innocent children to death while using slush funds raised as a result to pay off pro-Saddam and "anti-war" politicians like George Galloway who would then feign moral outrage over the suffering. The Noam Chomsky's of the world would then repeat Galloway's propaganda to stir up anti-American sentiment in Europe, which would call for an end to sanctions. Instead, as a result of the invasion, Libya gave up its WMD and we closed down a black market for WMD materials in Pakistan. Yet the left remains so naive as to believe that the notion of Iraqi WMDs was a complete fabrication made up by evil imperialist Westerners, even the French and German intelligence agencies who apparently agreed to libel the great Saladin Saddam in order to help George W. Bush get oil for his favorite company, Halliburton (Bush apparently paid off every intelligence agency in the world in one of the greatest conspiracies in human history). And again, the left says that Iran has benign intent and does not have any desire at all for WMD, but yet they can be quite cynical in their assessment of the motives of "evil empire" America, which apparently always boil down to oil (though why the antiwarriors got their way in allowing 400,000 black Africans to be exterminated in Darfur despite Sudan's oil is a mystery).

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 12:58am

38. "Even then, Israel hasn't got the firepower or the cahones to attack Israel" Posted by Shingo at 07/18/2009 @ 11:22pm

    Thank you for your insight.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 01:00am

39. "Gates testified before the Senate that he has no evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes"

    Actually, on April 30,2009, "Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions and would further drive it underground, making it more difficult to monitor...[and] that a military strike on Iran's nuclear program would not stop that country from pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon." http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=193535

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 01:16am

40. we found evidence that Saddam was only a few months away from a Hiroshima-style bomb until we destroyed his capability to produce one.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/18/2009 @ 11:54pm

    Actually, he wasn't even close. In fact, he'd pretty much given up on a bomb already by that stage.

    The Saudis had no reason to feel threatened by Saddam. They did fear the Iranians and were so grateful to Saddam from blunting the Iranian threat that they forgave a multi billion dollar loan. The Kuwaitis of course, were demanding payment in full, while they were stealing oil from Iraq.

    Saddam's threats to US, Britain, Syria, France etc was just hot air and grand standing for local political consumption. During the debates of Republican primaries, all the candidates were frequently engaging is upping the war rhetoric to prove who had the biggest cajones. Then when the Presidential race began, the tone came down significantly.

    So what if Saddam was still be in power today? Iraqis are being tortured to death in concentration camps TODAY. Kuwait is vile piece of land run by a vile tyrant who keeps hundreds of concubines. Are we to believe you have a sweet spot for the House of Saud and the Emir?

    Saddam was a pragmatist and a survivor who would have had to much to lose by attacking anyone with a nukes, even if he could have made one, which is highly doubtful.

    The people of Kuwait have never enjoyed free speech. The place is run by a tyrant. In any case, before we destroyed Iraq, it had the highest standard of living, good nutrition, literacy, and life expectancy in the Arab world.

    Since when have you given a crap about the poor people of Kuwait? You're pathetic.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 6:58pm

41. Actually, on April 30,2009, "Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions and would further drive it underground, making it more difficult to monitor...[and] that a military strike on Iran's nuclear program would not stop that country from pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon." http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=193535

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 01:16am

    ….and Gates re-iterated that there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, so he was clearly just talking from his gut. So did Dennis Blair, who said the 16 US intelligence agencies still stood behind the 2007 NIR conclusion.

    The IAEA has repeatedly reached the same conclusion. Yukiya Amano, who is going to succeed Mohamed ElBaradei as the next IAEA Chief, said last week that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Tehran is enriching weapons-grade uranium.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-04-voa1.cfm

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 7:05pm

42. And then you said let's contain him, and so sanctions that resulted in no deaths where the UN administered the oil-for-food program killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the places where Saddam administered it.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 12:27am |

    The 2 heads of UN Human Rights commission resigned their posts over the blockade and embargo of Iraq, calling it genocide and infanticide by the world on Iraq. The terms of reference of the sanctions was to disarm Iraq, but the last 3 Us presidents all said that they would remain in place so long as Saddam remained in power. The ones who violated the sanctions were the US. Madeline Alright told the world that 500,000 dead children was a price America was willing to pay, hence the blood of those children is on US hands.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 7:10pm

43. "Kuwait is vile piece of land run by a vile tyrant "

    I guess you don't pay much attention to Kuwaiti politics. "Out of the six GCC states, human rights record in Kuwait is, arguably, the best. The country has no political prisoners; as for prisoners of conscience, Prof Ahmed Al-Bagdadee is believed to have been the last one following his conviction in 1999 for blaspheming Islam (the professor chaired the political science department at Kuwait University, and was sentenced on October 4, 1999 under Kuwait's Press and Publications Law to one month in prison. The conviction was based on an article he had written in 1996 for the university's student magazine, Al-Shoula. He was eventually pardoned by the Emir of Kuwait and released from prison). Among organisations, which are primarily concerned with human rights, Kuwait Society for Human Rights can be named as one of them; also, there is a permanent Human Rights' Committee in the Kuwaiti parliament itself." "Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy and has the oldest directly elected parliament among the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The head of state is the Emir or Sheikh, a hereditary office. A council of ministers, also known as cabinet ministers, aids the Prime Minister in his task as the head of Government of Kuwait which must contain at least one elected member of the Kuwaiti parliament, known as Majlis Al-Umma (National Assembly). The National Assembly has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister or any member of cabinet through a series of constitutional procedures. All cabinet ministers are answerable to the National Assembly. The National Assembly consists of fifty elected members, who are chosen in elections held every four years. Government ministers are also granted membership in the parliament..."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 7:45pm

44. "...and can number up to sixteen excluding the fifty elected members. According to the Constitution of Kuwait, nomination of a new Emir or Crown Prince by the ruling Al-Sabah family has to be approved by the National Assembly. If the nominee does not win the votes of the majority of the assembly, the royal family must submit the names of three other candidates to the National Assembly, and the Assembly must approve one of them to hold the post. Any amendment to the constitution can be proposed by the Emir but it needs to be approved by more than two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly before being implemented." "Kuwait has a GDP (PPP) of US$138.6 billion and a per capita income of US$60,800, making it the fourth richest country in the world. Kuwait's human development index (HDI) stands at 0.912, the second highest in Middle East, after Israel and the highest in the Arab world. With a GDP growth rate of 5.7%, Kuwait has one of the fastest growing economies in the region. According to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, Kuwait has the second-most free economy in the Middle East." Let's emphasise here: capitalism WORKS! "In March 2007, Kuwait's foreign exchange reserves stood at US$213 billion. The Kuwait Stock Exchange, which has about 200 firms listed, is the second-largest stock exchange in the Arab world with a total market capitalization of US$235 billion. In 2007, the Kuwaiti government posted a budget surplus of US$43 billion. Kuwait has a well developed banking system and several banks in the country date back to the time before oil was discovered. Founded in 1952, the National Bank of Kuwait is the largest bank in the country and one of the largest in the Arab world. The Central Bank issues Kuwait's currency, the Kuwaiti dinar. In...

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 7:54pm

45. Out of the six GCC states, human rights record in Kuwait is, arguably, the best.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 7:45pm

    Iraq still had better health care and a higher standard of education.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 7:58pm

46. "...December 2007, the dinar was the highest valued currency unit in the world. The planned US$77 billion City of Silk is the largest real estate development project in the Middle East. Being a highly cosmopolitan society, Kuwait has a diverse and vibrant culture. The influence of Islamic and Arab culture on its architecture, music, attire, cuisine and lifestyle is prominent as well. The most distinctive characteristic of local Kuwaiti culture are the diwaniyas, a large reception room used for social gatherings attended mostly by close family members. While the Islamic dress code is not compulsory, unlike neighboring Saudi Arabia, many of the older Kuwaiti men prefer wearing thawb, an ankle-length white shirt woven from wool or cotton while the minority of women wear abaya, black over-garment covering most parts of the body. This attire is particularly well-suited for Kuwait's hot and dry climate. Western-style clothing is also fairly popular, especially among Kuwait's youth. Kuwait has an extensive, modern and well-maintained network of highways. Roadways extended 5,749 km, of which 4,887 km is paved. There are a total of seven airports in the country, of which four have paved runways. Kuwait International Airport serves as the principal hub for international air travel. State-owned Kuwait Airways is the largest airline in the country. In 2001, the airline carried 2,084,600 passengers on domestic and international flights. Kuwait has one of the most vocal and transparent media in the Arab World. In 2007, Kuwait was ranked second in the Middle East after Israel in the freedom of press index. In 1998, there were 6 AM and 11 FM radio stations and 13 television stations. In 2000, there were 624 radios and 486 television sets for every 1,000 people. In 2001, there...

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:01pm

47. ith a GDP growth rate of 5.7%, Kuwait has one of the fastest growing economies in the region.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 7:54pm

    Not being on the receiving end of a 10 year blockade and 2 invasion tends to make things easier yes. Still, prior to Desert Storm, Iraqis were better educated, had superior health care and women were much more liberated.

    Women's rights in Kuwait are as bad as Saudi Arabia. Women are forced to cover up from head to toe and are frequently stoned to death.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 8:02pm

48. "...were 165,000 Internet subscribers served by three service providers. In 1998, Kuwait had eight major daily newspapers in circulation of which two were in English and six were in Arabic. In 2002, the Arab Times was the most popular English daily, followed by the Kuwait Times. Al-Anabaa, with a circulation of 106,800 copies, was the most widely read Arabic daily. Currently, there are around 15 Arabic daily newspapers besides the English newspapers. A press law forbids insulting references to God and Islamic prophet Muhammad. Another law which made leading newspaper publishers eligible for hefty fines for criticizing the ruling family was lifted in 1992. Leading newspapers continue to impose self-restraint while being critical of the emir. However, no such restraint is observed while criticizing the government." "As of 2005 the literacy rate of Kuwait is 93.3 percent. Kuwait is facing challenges in improving the quality of education at all levels and to build capacities of students' from a young age. The Ministry of Education is also making efforts to incorporate women into the educated workforce through various programs, for instance the 1989 initiative to establish daytime literacy clinics for women. The Kuwaiti government also offers scholarships to students accepted in universities in United States, United Kingdom and other foreign institutes." And this is just what you can get in a few minutes off wikipedia.

    So, Shingo, I think it is safe to say that Kuwait COULD be worse off.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:06pm

49. "Women's rights in Kuwait are as bad as Saudi Arabia. Women are forced to cover up from head to toe and are frequently stoned to death."

    From the article I just quoted: "the Islamic dress code is not compulsory, unlike neighboring Saudi Arabia".

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:08pm

50. "Since when have you given a crap about the poor people of Kuwait? You're pathetic."

    Since when have I...what? Do I have a record of hating Kuwaitis? Where did this comment come from? Hell, they are better off than they would be today had you had your way back in 1991 as opposed to me having mine. But don't worry, you had your way later that year thanks to good ol' pragmatic realist G.H.W. Bush, and Saddam killed well over 800,000 people as consequence. Of course, if we HAD gone on to Baghdad and saved all those lives, you would have feigned "moral" outrage over the inevitable resulting sectarian warfare and would have accused Bush of genocide EVEN THOUGH such violence would have cost much less in terms of human life than the violence it prevented.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:19pm

51. "Iraq still had better health care and a higher standard of education."

    Actually, when we invaded, it was a hellish concentration camp without clean water, medicine, education, literacy, or nutrition that was plauged by mass starvation and malnutrition even though Saddam had enough food to feed his people. You are claiming that things were better in the eighties; they were nowhere near what you want them to have been.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:23pm

52. So, Shingo, I think it is safe to say that Kuwait COULD be worse off.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:06pm

    Perhaps but it's all speculation anyway. If Kuwait has been forced to stop slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, then Kuwait might not have been worse off.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 8:36pm

53. But don't worry, you had your way later that year thanks to good ol' pragmatic realist G.H.W. Bush, and Saddam killed well over 800,000 people as consequence.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:19pm

    You do love to pull these numbers out of the air don't you libertyfortheoppressed?

    it wasn't pragmatism on the part of G.H.W. Bush but criminality. He gave Sadddam the green light to invade Kuwait.

    Until then, Saddam had made numerous efforts to get the Emir to meet and negotiate their grievances,. having blown off Saddam a few times, they were again supposed to meet but the Emir skipped town with his 300 concubines, and Saddam decided enough was enough.

    Even then, it took the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter to put on a sterling acting performance and give the BS story about babies in the incubators for Congress to agree to Desert Storm.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 8:43pm

54. Actually, when we invaded, it was a hellish concentration camp without clean water, medicine, education, literacy, or nutrition that was plauged by mass starvation and malnutrition even though Saddam had enough food to feed his people.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 8:23pm

    Sure, after a decade of bombing water treatment plants and blocking basic medicines and strangling the economy, that was to be expected.

    It wasn't starvation that killed half a million Iraqis, it was the denial o the most basic medical supplies. And the 2 former UN heads of Human Rights said, the US unleashed infanticide on Iraq.

    There wouldn't have been an OFF program is Saddam had enough food BTW.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 8:48pm

55. "he'd pretty much given up on a bomb already by that stage. "

    Well, we have proof that he was only a few months away from building one. So, you would trust him with this capability because you "know" from some unnamed, unsourced, unlinked entity which you do not even allude to the existence of (your gut?) that he had "pretty much" (as opposed to "seriously") given up on a bomb "already" (meaning before we destroyed his capability to produce one). By the way, your comment about women having had more rights in Saddamist Iraq than they do now in Kuwait just seems a more crazily pathological load of bullshit every time I think about it. It not only ignores "human rights" as opposed to "women's rights" (in Kuwait women have free speech, and vote, and critique government policy, and run for office: did they in Iraq?) but it is also willfully ignorant of reality. From: http://www.slate.com/id/2220520/ "In Iraq this last January, the local elections penalized the clerical parties that had been making life a misery in cities like Basra. In neighboring Kuwait last month, the Islamist forces did poorly, and four women--including the striking figure of Rola Dashti, who refuses to wear any headgear--were elected to the 50-member parliament." She's an ELECTED OFFICIAL of the Kuwaiti government AND SHE OPENLY REFUSES TO ABIDE BY THE ISLAMIST CLOTHING RULES and you say shamefully, as a liar, "Women's rights in Kuwait are as bad as Saudi Arabia. Women are forced to cover up from head to toe and are frequently stoned to death"? Despicable tactics!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:01pm

56. Well, we have proof that he was only a few months away from building one.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:01pm

    No you don't because he wasn't.

    And if you want to make a case for eh Iraq war, it's probably nto a great idea to quote one of teh loudest cheer leaders for it. Hitchens still insists that Iraq has nukes hidden away somewhere and that Saddam was best friends with Bin Laden.

    Hitchens is also best friends with Palavi Jnr, son of the Iranian dictator that killed 10 thousand people.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 9:13pm

57. "There wouldn't have been an OFF program is Saddam had enough food BTW."

    Of course not, but after it was implemented, Saddam had as much food if not more than he did before the Gulf War. The US State Department has extensively detailed this. It also has documentary evidence showing that Saddam smuggled all of the food and nursing supplies that he could OUT of Iraq by the tons on boats to sell on a black market. They go into great detail about this and numerous other abuses perpetrated by Saddam in the following link: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm From wiki: "The Lancet and Unicef studies observed that child mortality decreased in the north and increased in the south between 1994 and 1999 but did not attempt to explain the disparity, or to apportion culpability: "Both the Government of Iraq and the U.N. Sanctions Committee should give priority to contracts for supplies that will have a direct impact on the well-being of children," UNICEF said. However, others did attempt to explain this disparity, or use this to apportion culpability. In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible. He wrote:

    The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. ... The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief"

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:23pm

58. "You do love to pull these numbers out of the air don't you libertyfortheoppressed?"

    What? You concede that 300,000 Iraqis died in Saddam's 1991 genocide and over 500,000 under the sanctions, right? Plus, Saddam tortured people to death EVERY DAY for 24 YEARS!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:27pm

59. What? You concede that 300,000 Iraqis died in Saddam's 1991 genocide and over 500,000 under the sanctions, right? Plus, Saddam tortured people to death EVERY DAY for 24 YEARS!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:27pm

    No because while the half million number killed by the sanctions is widely accetepted, the Shiites were killed in an uprising that the Bush Snr incited, having led them to believe that the US would back them.

    If there was an uprising in the US against the government, then the government woudl kill those US citizens who participated. Would you call that genocide?

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 9:32pm

60. "it wasn't pragmatism on the part of G.H.W. Bush but criminality. He gave Sadddam the green light to invade Kuwait. "

    No, he didn't. He said nothing on the issue until Saddam invaded it. Then he condemned the invasion. Now, it is true that Saddam told one hack US diplomat he wanted to rape Kuwait, and he WAS told that the US was neutral on Arab-Arab border disputes, but that isn't the same thing. By contrast, lovable peacenik Jimmy Carter really DID green-light the Iran-Iraq war, and John F. Kennedy really did begin the sordid collaboration between the Baathists and the US by helping them stage their first coup in 1963.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:33pm

61. No, he didn't. He said nothing on the issue until Saddam invaded it.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:33pm

    Wrong again. US ambassador to Iraq, April Glasby, passed on the message 2 or 3 times that the US had no interest in the feud between Iraq and Kuwait.

    April Glasby passed on the words of Richard Baker, verbatim.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 9:35pm

62. "The Lancet and Unicef studies observed that child mortality decreased in the north and increased in the south between 1994 and 1999 but did not attempt to explain the disparity, or to apportion culpability: "

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:23pm

    i do laugh when you guys cite the Lancet when it suits you, then dismiss it when it doesn't. So I take it you agree more than a million have been killed as a consequence of the US invasion?

    BTW. Why are we not discussing Iran. Have you run out of ammo? Just curious?

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 9:37pm

63. "No because while the half million number killed by the sanctions is widely accetepted, the Shiites were killed in an uprising that the Bush Snr incited, having led them to believe that the US would back them. "

    I was backing up my "well over 800,000" figure, which you doubted. Now you seem to admit that they DID die, but you say that you won't "let" me count the 300,000 dead Saddam killed in April 1991.

    "If there was an uprising in the US against the government, then the government woudl kill those US citizens who participated. Would you call that genocide?"

    1. Those US citizens could vote the regime out of office if they wanted regime change. 2. If they lost the vote, too bad; a majority rules in a democracy. 3. If they wanted to use violence to force their will as a minority onto the majority without democracy like fascists, I would want them to be killed. 4. There is no co-equivalent legitimacy between a genocidal dictatorship responsible for the deaths of millions and a vanguard democracy, or between freedom fighters and fascists. 5. Most of the 300,000 killed were not rebels. I would say that the slaughter qualifies as a genocide.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:44pm

64. "And if you want to make a case for eh Iraq war, it's probably nto a great idea to quote one of teh loudest cheer leaders for it"

    Why not? Hitchens is absolutely brilliant.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:46pm

65. "Even then, it took the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter to put on a sterling acting performance and give the BS story about babies in the incubators for Congress to agree to Desert Storm."

    That story was a lie, but Iraq did things ten times worse to the people of Kuwait in reality.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:48pm

66. "The 2 heads of UN Human Rights commission resigned their posts over the blockade and embargo of Iraq, calling it genocide and infanticide by the world on Iraq."

    So either "the world" is lying, or Saddam was. I know who I think is more reliably honest.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:50pm

67. Those US citizens could vote the regime out of office if they wanted regime change.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:44pm

    Irrelevant. If the American public violently revolted against Washington, they would be killed. thousands were arbitrarily arrested during eh 2004 GOP Convention in NYC.

    Of course the 300,000 were revels. They were Shiites trying to overthrow Saddam. ----------------------------- Why not? Hitchens is absolutely brilliant.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:46pm

    He is when he's not talking about Iraq. -------------------------- That story was a lie, but Iraq did things ten times worse to the people of Kuwait in reality.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:48pm

    How so? They weren't in Kuwait that long.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 9:52pm

68. So either "the world" is lying, or Saddam was. I know who I think is more reliably honest.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:50pm

    Where's the contradiction? The UN said that infanticide was being brought to Iraq by the blockade.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 9:54pm

69. "The Saudis had no reason to feel threatened by Saddam. They did fear the Iranians and were so grateful to Saddam from blunting the Iranian threat that they forgave a multi billion dollar loan."

    But Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war, which killed as many as 1.5 million people, not Iran. So, you just said this war was justified: you said that Iran really WAS a threat to the Middle East in 1980 that Iraq had to take care of. You just justified a war of aggression that killed almost as many people as Pol Pot. You have also defended the invasion of Kuwait. And yet you find the Iraq war an act of aggression!?!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:56pm

70. "Irrelevant. If the American public violently revolted against Washington, they would be killed. thousands were arbitrarily arrested during eh 2004 GOP Convention in NYC. "

    These arrests are morally equivalent to Saddam killing 300,000 Iraqis in one month of his 24-year rule alone?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:59pm

71. "Where's the contradiction? The UN said that infanticide was being brought to Iraq by the blockade."

    So you say the UN accused itself of genocide? Can you link me to this UN report (don't worry, I know in advance you can't, so I'll understand if you dodge the question)?

    I despise the UN, and America would just ignore it if it were up to me, but I don't buy that!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:03pm

72. "Why are we not discussing Iran. Have you run out of ammo?"

    I wrote a long rant about leftists being way too naive with regard to both Saddam's and Iran's intent on WMD. You started arguing against the Gulf War and defending Saddam's annexation of Kuwait. That is how we got to be debating what we are debating.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:07pm

73. I wrote a long rant about leftists being way too naive with regard to both Saddam's and Iran's intent on WMD.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:07pm

    Yes your rants do tend to be long and often fail to make the point. In any case, it goes to show how disconnected the right are when in the wake of the Iraq WMD debacle, some dead enders till insist Saddam was a threat or that we are not taking non exitent threats seriously enough.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:11pm

74. So you say the UN accused itself of genocide? Can you link me to this UN report (don't worry, I know in advance you can't, so I'll understand if you dodge the question)?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:03pm

    The embargo was being controlled by the US. The UNSC agreed that the sanctions were to disarm Iraq. After helping to draft these, and getting these through a UNSC Resolution, the US turned around and said that it woudl veto any motion to lift the sanctions while Saddam remianed in power.

    Hence the genocide that ensued was US made.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:13pm

75. These arrests are morally equivalent to Saddam killing 300,000 Iraqis in one month of his 24-year rule alone?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 9:59pm

    No but they demonstrate the willingness of the government to deny the right to demonstrate. Had the demonstrators brought and used weapons, there would have been a massacre, no doubt.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:15pm

76. "Had the demonstrators brought and used weapons, there would have been a massacre, no doubt."

    Yes, if they started attacking and/or killing innocent people, some of them might have been shot by police. But the US government would not have perpetrated genocide against it's own citizens to reassert control and quell dissent.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:20pm

77. "The embargo was being controlled by the US. The UNSC agreed that the sanctions were to disarm Iraq. After helping to draft these, and getting these through a UNSC Resolution, the US turned around and said that it woudl veto any motion to lift the sanctions while Saddam remianed in power. "

    Hysterical, unfounded nonsense! I've linked to reports proving that there were no deaths in Iraq from the sanctions except in the places were Saddam administered the OFFP. You then said "the UN blamed the sanctions not Saddam!". I asked you to link me this UN "report". You couldn't. Instead you posted a bunch of myopic drivel.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:24pm

78. Yes, if they started attacking and/or killing innocent people, some of them might have been shot by police.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:20pm

    Are you now suggesting that those that rose up against Saddam, attacked and killed innocent people? Given the conduct of the Shiite death squads, I guess it's possible.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:30pm

79. Hysterical, unfounded nonsense!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:24pm |

    On the contrary, it's on the record.

    The very same year that Bush Snr helped draft the Resolutions calling for Saddam to be disarmed and the sanctions tied to this demand, Bush said that the US weren't going to allow the sanctions to be lifted while Saddam remained in power.

    Now none of the Resolutions mentioned this condition, and as such, the only way the US could make this bold claim is in the knowledge that a UNSC Resolution woudl have to be passed to lift the sanctions. Bush promised to block any such resolution with it's veto power.

    It's very simple really.

    Your report did not prove there were no deaths in Iraq from the sanctions except in the places were Saddam administered the OFFP. The Lancet contradicts your theory.

    The 2 UN Human Rights heads who resigned were protesting the UN, not Saddam because they knew the sanctions were a fraud.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:37pm

80. "Are you now suggesting that those that rose up against Saddam, attacked and killed innocent people? Given the conduct of the Shiite death squads, I guess it's possible."

    No, you idiot, YOU are the one defending Saddam's genocide and even denying that it was a genocide (I presume you don't think Darfur qualifies, either?). You compared it, in the most facile way, to a handful of unlawful demonstrators being briefly arrested years ago. When I asked you if you thought the two events were morally equivalent, you said: "No but they demonstrate the willingness of the government to deny the right to demonstrate. Had the demonstrators brought and used weapons, there would have been a massacre, no doubt." So had they started shooting innocent people, they may have been liable to get shot themselves. Thank you for this profound observation. This really shows that the US really IS about as tyrannical as Saddam's Iraq. Apparently, since you think Americans ought to have the right to go on murderous rampages, you are an anarchist, not a leftist.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:41pm

81. Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:37pm

    I gave you links. Where is your PROOF?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:43pm

82. Why are you obsessed with the Shiite death squads? You know, the ones funded, trained, and supported by Iran, which you said was a threat that had to be attacked in 1980? Are you calling for war on Iran?

    Their tactics hardly compare to the Sunni AQI, insurgency, militias, Zarqawi, Saddam, the Fedayeen Saddam, suicide bombers, ect.

    You get all your news from Baathists, so maybe this explains the hatred of Shiites, though Iraq would have been much better off if it was all Shiite.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:50pm

83. So had they started shooting innocent people, they may have been liable to get shot themselves.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:41pm

    You are being evasive. With weapons in hands, had he demonstrators needn't have shot any innocent people, but resisted arrest. With neither side giving in, the outcome woudl have been a massacre.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:56pm

84. I gave you links. Where is your PROOF?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:43pm

    A UN report is a political document. The UN will never publish a report condemning of of the permanent members of the UNSC.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 10:58pm

85. Why are you obsessed with the Shiite death squads? You know, the ones funded, trained, and supported by Iran, which you said was a threat that had to be attacked in 1980?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 10:50pm

    Excuse me? I said no such thing.

    The death squads were supported by the occupation, via a program known as the Salvador Option. They traveled at night, using US supplied vehicles and passing through US check points unimpeded.

    The death squads WERE militias. They were every bit as bad as the insurgency and Fedayeen Saddam.

    The Baathists had no news, so how could I have goten it from them. You got all your news from teh Bush White House.

    I have no hatred of Shiites, though if you are such a Shiite lover, one wonder why you are so keen to see Iran bombed?

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 11:02pm

86. "You are being evasive. With weapons in hands, had he demonstrators needn't have shot any innocent people, but resisted arrest."

    We are talking about a hypothetical situation, one which you invented. I'm not the one saying "if they shot people, they would have been arrested," YOU are. You didn't write "if they had but didn't use weapons". You explicitly said that they would have been shot "if they used weapons." This is what YOU wrote at 07/19/2009 @ 10:15pm .

    I guess you'll say now that you didn't mean guns, just that they would have started beating cops with metal pipes. So, that is acceptable in your mind?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:15pm

87. I guess you'll say now that you didn't mean guns, just that they would have started beating cops with metal pipes. So, that is acceptable in your mind?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:15pm

    Of course I meant guns. But it doesn't take much imagination to picture thousands of protesters refusing toe disperse and resiting arrest being faces down by riot police. Tensions mount. Someone makes a dumb move and a sniper takes out a protester and guns start blazing.

    It could happen here, with out own militias.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 11:24pm

88. "Excuse me? I said no such thing. "

    Actually, you did. You said that the Saudis should have been more grateful that Saddam took on Iran, and while defending Saddam's aggression against that country you said it was a genuine threat to Saudi Arabia (and you implied to Iraq as well). I can quote you as refering to an actual "Iranian threat". Look at what you wrote at 07/19/2009 @ 6:58pm. Shingo, you lie so much, you are starting to lie about your own lies.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:26pm

89. "Of course I meant guns." Okay, so you were trying to make a point about how unjust the US is, and about how it is as unjust as Saddamist Iraq, by saying that if a militia started using guns on police, they might have been shot? Which you say is about as unjust as Saddam's 1991 campaign of genocide which you say really wasn't a genocide. You are really starting to seem like an idiot now, Shingo.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:31pm

90. "The death squads were supported by the occupation"

    SUUUUUUUURRRE.....

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:33pm

91. Actually, you did.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:26pm

    You accused me of agreeing that the death squads were a threat in 1980. They didn't even exist until 2003/2004.

    As for the Saudis , they were grateful that Saddam took on Iran, but I didn't give an opinion either way. Saddam nor Iran was genuine threat to SA, but the Saudi leadership obviously believed otherwise. Tyrants tend to be quite paranoid.

    The reference to the "Iranian threat" was an expression that illustrated Saudi perceptions, not my own.

    Go back and re-read what I wrote. Actually, have a nap first, you need it.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 11:43pm

92. SUUUUUUUURRRE.....

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:33pm

    Looks like someone has a lot of reading to do. No wonder you are so clueless about the Iraq invasion.

    'Salvador Option' mooted for Iraq http://tinyurl.com/5sdad

    The Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq http://tinyurl.com/jhttc

    Video: Iraq's "Death Squads" supported by the US http://tinyurl.com/jhttc

    Proof of US orchestration of Death Squads Killings in Iraq http://tinyurl.com/lc5gw3

    Is the U.S. Training Iraqi Death Squads to Fight the Insurgency? http://tinyurl.com/nexuwm

    Iraq's Death Squads: An Instrument Of The Occupation http://tinyurl.com/mu7z93

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 11:54pm

93. "Of course I meant guns." Okay, so you were trying to make a point about how unjust the US is, and about how it is as unjust as Saddamist Iraq, by saying that if a militia started using guns on police, they might have been shot?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/19/2009 @ 11:31pm

    I don't know why you are making this so complicated. Especially after 911, there is no way the police and security fores would allow thousands of armed protesters to have their way.

    When you have 2 sides both armed with hundreds of guns and neither is willing to back down, the outcome it inevitable.

    Surely even you can follow that basic logic.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/19/2009 @ 11:58pm

94. "You accused me of agreeing that the death squads were a threat in 1980. They didn't even exist until 2003/2004. "

    No, I didn't. You did not understand what I wrote, Shingo. Most 12-year-olds would have been able to figure it out. This is what I wrote: "Why are you obsessed with the Shiite death squads? You know, the ones funded, trained, and supported by Iran, which you said was a threat that had to be attacked in 1980?"

    The implication is that you said Iran was a threat in 1980, not the death squads Iran supported decades later. Which you did. Then you denied you said it. Then I found the quote of exactly what you said when you said it. Then you admitted you said it but said that you only said it because what you wrote was a projection of what you imagined the leaders of Saudi Arabia might have thought at the time. The context should have been obvious, because only a moment before writing my above quote, I responded to your remark about the "Iranian threat" by saying: "But Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war, which killed as many as 1.5 million people, not Iran. So, you just said this war was justified: you said that Iran really WAS a threat to the Middle East in 1980 that Iraq had to take care of. You just justified a war of aggression that killed almost as many people as Pol Pot. You have also defended the invasion of Kuwait. And yet you find the Iraq war an act of aggression!?!"

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:01am

95. "I don't know why you are making this so complicated. Especially after 911, there is no way the police and security fores would allow thousands of armed protesters to have their way. "

    Right. I agree. You added that if the protestors "used their guns," many would have been shot. No shit. Really?!? How AMAZING! I really have to thank you for your profound wisdom and insight. Seriously, Shingo, this is what you said when rationalizing Saddam's 1991 campaign of genocide. I'm not making this more complex than it is. What you said was completely, spectacularly stupid.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:07am

96. "Is the U.S. Training Iraqi Death Squads to Fight the Insurgency? http://tinyurl.com/nexuwm "

    This article doesn't prove a thing. Amy Goodman repeats something Bush says, then she mentions that Shiite death squads are in Iraq. Then Rumsfeld is asked about it; he says he doesn't know anything. Then they invite someone on who says he thinks the US is letting the death squads run wild to fight the insurgents.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:18am

97. No, I didn't. You did not understand what I wrote, Shing

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:01am

    You are having 2 conversatinos with yourself, so let me make this clear.

    I never conflated death quads with the Iraq/Iran war because they didn't exist.

    I being up the death squads, because as I have demonstrated, the death squads were supported by the occupation.

    I have not supported any wars. None. Not the Iran/Iraq war, not Desert storm and not the latest invasion. Hence none are justifies IMO.

    Saudi Arabia feared Iran yes. I doubt they had reason to but they did. They were grateful to Iraq for keeping Iran engaged in a destructive war for 10 years and having forgiven him their loan, were on good terms with him until Cheney showed them the fake satellite images of tank battalions amassed on the border.

    In fact, the Saddam was more highly regarded than the Emir of Kuwait at the time.

    Yes, Iraq was the aggressor in the war with Iran. Again i repeat, it was not justified.

    I never said that Iran was a threat to the Middle East in 1980. I certainly know that not to be the case.

    While Saddam has his reasons for invading Kuwait, I do not support his invasion.

    And yes, the Iraq invasion was a naked act of aggression! Unjustified and based on lies.

    Is that clear?

    Posted by Shingo at 07/20/2009 @ 12:18am

98. "Iraq's Death Squads: An Instrument Of The Occupation http://tinyurl.com/mu7z93"

    This "article" doesn't prove a thing either. It expands on the above mentioned theory from Democracy Now and uses it to make sweeping, hysterical judgements with no basis in fact. This is an ACTUAL QUOTE from the "article": "The totality of the raids, kidnapping, torture, ongoing civilian massacres and murder were part of the illegal and racist war of aggression perpetrated by the U.S. and Britain against a defenceless nation in disregard of International Law and contempt for International institutions. Let me stating the obvious. The U.S. did not invade Iraq to establish "democracy" and "free Iraqis". The U.S. invaded and destroyed Iraq in order to humiliate and divide Muslims – Arabs in particular –, protect Israel's Zionist expansion and control Iraq's natural wealth... Destabilisation was one of the aims of U.S. foreign policy. The unprovoked war of aggression and the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq, including the illegal building of U.S. military bases and the largest C.I.A. station in the world on Iraqi soil, are major destabilising factors. The U.S. objectives have always been to weaken Iraq, divide the people and control Iraq behind a façade of corrupt stooges, with poorly trained and poorly armed army and police. "

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:27am

99. This "article" doesn't prove a thing either. libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:27am

    I take it you accept the other half dozen links I provided as well as the video of US troops standing idle while the death squads did their thing?

    The angle on US supoprt for the death squads is not even controversial. The death squads were operating out of teh Ministry of the Interrior, whcih were being financed entirely by the occupation at that time. Hence there is no likelihood that the occupation were unaware of this activity or disapproved of it.

    http://tinyurl.com/kpd7bd http://tinyurl.com/mn7h7d

    It makes perfect sense that the occupation woudl have tried to expoit the death squads to counter the insurgency, purely for pragmatic reasons.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/20/2009 @ 12:36am

100. From: http://tinyurl.com/lc5gw3

     "it seems very likely that Black Flag was the cross-party paramilitary outfit brought into being by Paul Bremmer. Could this militia account for many of the claims of Shiite militiamen accompanying/conducting raids or should we think that the unit was eventually subsumed within the specialised paramilitary units of the Ministry of the Interior after the transfer of sovereignty?"

     This article speculates about the same theory as Democracy Now. However, unlike Democracy Now, it has some evidence: testimony of known, unapologetic Baathists tortured by Shiites close to the Iraqi government. I only read the bit about Tareq Sammaree, but he was actually rescued by the US military, according to the article. Then, the article claims that some anonymous intelligence officer said that some US forces have been known to anonymously give tips to deaths squads to help them kill Baathists. That is perfectly plausible.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:52am

101. "http://tinyurl.com/jhttc "

     This article is a ridiculous joke by the lunatic John Pilger. In it, he claims that all the mainstream media, and, in fact, pretty much all the media in America is biased and that only he is an honest journalist willing to report the truth. He has no evidence at all for his allegations, but the "truth" is as follows: "The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration". Ludicrous. Bush actually prevented a civil war; if he was trying to do the opposite, then he really would be an idiot.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:03am

102. That is perfectly plausible.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 12:52am

     Actually very likely. When you consider that the key aspect of the surge was to make peace with former insurgents and even former members of AQI, in order to combat AQI, this is hardly a tin foil hat scenario.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/20/2009 @ 01:06am

103. "Video: Iraq's "Death Squads" supported by the US http://tinyurl.com/jhttc"

     This link is not towards any original content or a video. It is just for that stupid Pilger article again, reposted to give yourself more support. The link for the two is the same:

     "The Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq http://tinyurl.com/jhttc"

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:11am

104. http://tinyurl.com/5sdad

     "the formula to defeat future insurgencies.... This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic."

     This article says nothing profound, it just repeats idle gossip.

     From this article you mentioned: http://tinyurl.com/kpd7bd "While there is little evidence of direct U.S. involvement, questions have arisen over what the U.S. forces have done - or not done - to encourage such killings."

     I'm willing to accept that. You seemed to imply, like Pilger, that the highest levels of the US government delibrately worked out an organized plan to train death squads.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:23am

105. I'm willing to accept that. You seemed to imply, like Pilger, that the highest levels of the US government delibrately worked out an organized plan to train death squads.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:23am

     It wasn't called the Salvador Option for nothing. The US government has done it before, so why it is so unfathomable that they should try it again?

     Posted by Shingo at 07/20/2009 @ 01:29am

106. "http://tinyurl.com/mn7h7d"

     The information in this article is literally from Al Jazeera. Even it doesn't blame America, or even argue that the death squads were formed by the Iraqi government, just that some of them were close to and may have worked with some people involved in the Iraqi government or Iraqi forces.

     I also find it funny how all these accounts of torture are about as bad as sunday school compared to what things were like under Saddam.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:31am

107. "The US government has done it before, so why it is so unfathomable that they should try it again?"

     I guess because I sincerely believe in the integrity of George W. Bush's moral character, and I could not say the same about any US president since Truman and Eisenhower.

     That said, I am critical of the many mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq. I think Iraq's constitution actually could use some revising, as Dreyfuss earlier suggested, and I agreed with the article in the Nation titled "Iraq's New Death Squad". Did you read that? I have to say, urgent action ought to be taken by Obama to deal with the problems it raises. I know Iraq's future is uncertain, and I would hate to see security forces left over after the occupation try to stage a coup, as has often happened in history in countries after foriegn occupation. I still don't see how anyone could argue, though, that Iraq's future would be brighter had we not intervened.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:43am

108. The information in this article is literally from Al Jazeera.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:31am

     Well, that's no longer an argument now that even Newt "let's bomb Iran" Gingrich is happy to appear on Al Jazeera.

     The name "Salvador Options" came out of Rumsfeld's office BTW.

     The severity of torture comes down to the victim in the end. 100 people have died in US custody, presumably from torture, so it's debatable how much worse Saddam's torture might have been.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/20/2009 @ 01:45am

109. I guess because I sincerely believe in the integrity of George W. Bush's moral character, and I could not say the same about any US president since Truman and Eisenhower.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 01:43am

     I nearly fell off my chair when I read that. Please tell me your not serious. Bush is a basket case who wouldn't know the first thing about integrity. He is a liar, a coward, and most of all, spectacularly ignorant.

     The only thing one could realistically say in defense of Bush, is that he was clueless as to what was going on, and blissfully ignorant of what people were up to around him.

     I would also agree that Truman and Eisenhower were morally corrupt.

     Anyway I did read "Iraq's New Death Squad" and agree with much of it too.

     Whether Iraq's future would be brighter had we not intervened is not really worth debating any longer. What's done is done.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/20/2009 @ 01:59am

110. After reading this thread I finally figured out that Shingo is Baghdad Bob.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 11:01am

111. Uh, sorry, Shingo, you're dead wrong about there being no evidence at all that Iran wants nukes. Just ask the Wall Street Journal:

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124803669414063037.html

     "President Obama has committed to trying diplomacy to stop the Iranian bomb. Time, though, is on the mullahs' side, not least because so much of it was wasted after the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate made the improbable case that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This assessment not only contradicted previous U.S. intelligence consensus but -- as recent court documents show -- also the conclusions of a key U.S. ally with excellent sources in Iran -- Germany.

     The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, has amassed evidence of a sophisticated Iranian nuclear weapons program that continued beyond 2003. This usually classified information comes courtesy of Germany's highest state-security court. In a 30-page legal opinion on March 26 and a May 27 press release in a case about possible illegal trading with Iran, a special national security panel of the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe cites from a May 2008 BND report, saying the agency "showed comprehensively" that "development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003. According to the judges, the BND supplemented its findings on August 28, 2008, showing "the development of a new missile launcher and the similarities between Iran's acquisition efforts and those of countries with already known nuclear weapons programs, such as Pakistan and North Korea."

     It's important to point out that this was no ordinary agency report, the kind that often consists just of open source material, hearsay and speculation. Rather, the BND submitted..."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 7:11pm

112. "...an "office testimony," which consists of factual statements about the Iranian program that can be proved in a court of law. This is why, in their March 26 opinion, the judges wrote that "a preliminary assessment of the available evidence suggests that at the time of the crime [April to November 2007] nuclear weapons were being developed in Iran." In their May press release, the judges come out even more clear, stating unequivocally that "Iran in 2007 worked on the development of nuclear weapons."

     The judges had been asked to consider an appeal in the case of a German-Iranian businessman accused of brokering supplies for Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Federal Prosecutor had charged the defendant, identified by the authorities only as "Mohsen V.," with violating Germany's War Weapons Control Law and the Foreign Trade Act. A lower court in Frankfurt refused to try the case on the grounds that it was unlikely that Iran had a nuclear program at the time of the defendant's activities in 2007, citing the NIE report as evidence.

     That's why the Supreme Court judges had to rule first on the question of whether that program exists at all. Having answered that question in the affirmative, the court had to rule next on the likelihood of the defendant to be found guilty in a trial. The supreme court's conclusions are unusually strong. "The results of the investigation do in fact provide sufficient indications that the accused aided the development of nuclear weapons in Iran through business dealings."

     The supreme court thus annulled the lower court's decision to throw out the case, demanding that the Frankfurt-based judges try the defendant on the original charges.

     The case itself sheds light on how these networks function. According to the supreme court..."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 7:13pm

113. "...judges, the businessman has brokered "industrial machines, equipment and raw materials primarily to Iranian customers," for Iran's nuclear weapons program.

     According to the same decision, the defendant's business partners in Tehran "dealt with acquiring military and nuclear-related goods for Iran and used various front companies, headquartered for example in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, to circumvent existing trade restrictions." According to the judges, Mohsen V. also tried to supply to Tehran via front companies in Dubai "Geiger counters for radiation-resistant detectors constructed especially for protection against the effects of nuclear detonations."

     Defendant Mohsen V.'s various business contacts in Iran, Russia, Germany, and the Near and Middle East are listed in the prosecutor's files and in the judges' decision. So is information related to the secret supply of "two high-speed cameras needed to develop nuclear warheads. The delivery of the cameras to the final customers in Iran occurred on November 1, 2007 at the latest." The Karlsruhe judges wrote that, by his own admission, Mohsen V. was "aware of the cameras' possible use in the military arena."

     The court's decision and the BND's reports raise the question of how, or why, U.S. intelligence officials could have come to the conclusion that Iran suspended its program in 2003. German intelligence officials wonder themselves. BND sources have told me that they have shared their findings and documentation with their U.S. colleagues ahead of the 2007 NIE report -- as is customary between these two allies. It appears the Americans have simply ignored this evidence despite repeated warnings from the BND. This suggests not so much a failure of U.S. intelligence but its sabotage."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 7:14pm

114. In response, Ed Morrissey pointed out: "This rises far above the level of evidence provided in the 2007 NIE. The court had to determine whether evidence presented by the German government could convict a defendant in an espionage trial, and the case rested in large part on whether the Iranians had continued to develop nuclear weapons. A lower-court ruling had tossed out the indictment, ruling that the US NIE showed that Iran had not done work on its nuclear-weapons programs during the time that the defendant had allegedly traded illegally and conducted espionage on behalf of their program. In response, the BND showed the court their evidence of continued work on the weapons program -- which the court ruled sufficient to use at trial. As the authors note, this decision calls into question yet again how the US intelligence service could have concluded otherwise. Did they not coordinate with the Germans, who have much better access to Iran than either the US or even the British? The BND says they shared these findings with the Americans prior to the publication of the NIE, but that they were ignored. Why? It's really not difficult to conclude that the higher echelons of American intelligence had gone to war with the Bush administration early in his presidency. The 2007 NIE was their coup de grace, making Bush impotent and giving them control over American foreign policy. It also let vital time slip past while Iran continued to develop nuclear weapons, although in the event, Europe simply rejected the NIE as faulty and proceeded along the same path that Bush had demanded. The NIE gave Russia and China political cover to block the West's attempts to rein in the Iranians, although that would have happened anyway with other rationalizations."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 7:18pm

115. I'm always late to the scene, but I compliment Mr Dreyfuss for being the first to break the US censorship on the articles from Haaretz (June 17). "Mossad: Iran Will Have Nuclear Bomb by 2014" and "Israel Can't Make up it's Mind About Iran Nuclear Timetable". These two articles show how intelligence has been falsified for years by the neo-cons and Zionists in Israel and the US to manipulate and sway public opinion for their political gain. For the Zionists who get up in the morning and with a huge amount of Chutzpah start waving their arms and shouting,"The Iranians have the bomb,let's bomb them now", Meir Dagan's information must come as a huge shock. That their own Mossad would break up their faith based fantasies is anti-semitic and treasonous, if you listen to the twisted logic of too many of the posters on this site. As far as Mr. Dreyfuss's statement about Obama having a new policy toward Iran, Obama has the same policy as Bush. Both he and Hillary groveled and kowtowed to AIPAC befor the election and Obama still parrots the AIPAC line that Iran is building nuclear weapons when our own CIA says six years IF they decide to build a bomb. The Russians say no, our Secretary of Defense says he has no proof, and the new head of the IAEA also says there is no proof of any nukes being built. When you have differing statements on nuclear weapons at the highests levels of both governments it can lead to dangerous situations. Doesn't anyone remember all the statements about WMD before the Iraq war started in 2003? Obama needs to fire all the Zionists such as Dennis Ross who has just written a book with Michael Makovsky which argues that we should act like we are talking to the Iranians, even though we aren't sincere, and then attack. (read the New Pentagon Papers).

     Posted by Aarky at 07/21/2009 @ 8:14pm

116. Mr Dreyfuss ahould have suggested in all his Iran articles that Obama could get right with the Iranians If: He stops accusing them of building nukes; tell Hillary to stop screeching about civil rights to the Iranians; cancel Bush's secret $400 million program to destabilize the Iranian government; pull our Special OPs troops out of Iran; cancel most of the trade restrictions against Iran; fire Dennis Ross and all other Zionists in the US government who sabotage meaningful talks with Iran; ask the Iranians to allow a US Interests Section in Tehran (they have one in Washington D.C.; tell the Israelis to stop waving sabers at Iran. Until the Iranian government sees real meaningful changes by the US they will not want to change their attitude. The one smart thing that Bush did as President was to turn down the Israelis in the summer of 2008 when they sent Ehud Barak, Gabi Ashkenazi, and Meir Dagan to D.C. to ask for permission and assistance to attack Iran. He finally started listening to the Generals and stopped listening to Cheney and the Zionist lobbyists for AIPAC.

     Posted by Aarky at 07/21/2009 @ 8:33pm

117. In response, Ed Morrissey pointed out: "This rises far above the level of evidence provided in the 2007 NIE. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009 @ 7:18pm

     Clearly, Ed Morrissey is a liar.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/22/2009 @ 8:06pm

118. Uh, sorry, Shingo, you're dead wrong about there being no evidence at all that Iran wants nukes. Just ask the Wall Street Journal:

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124803669414063037.html Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/20/2009

     What we have here are vague assertions mad by the WSJ about "the development of a new missile launcher". Iran's missile program is hardly news, but this article makes the leap of faith by arguing that because Iran is trying to acquire missile technology, and states that have nukes have also tried to acquire or acquired this missile technology, that this is somehow evidence that Iran is producing nukes.

     And in the end, as if things could not be more bizarre, it comes down to Germany's Supreme Court to decide if Iran has a nuclear weapons program, as though this were a matter of law.

     This is conflation of the highest order by the WSJ, which is arguing that the existence of the missile program is tantamount to a nuclear weapons program.

     One wonders if the ruling of the German Supreme Court will make it into the next NIE.

     Even the Israelis couldn't get exited about this tepest ina teacup.

     Pathetic to say the least.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/22/2009 @ 8:28pm

119. After reading this thread I finally figured out that Shingo is Baghdad Bob.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 11:01am

     Of course you do Mr End of Days.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/22/2009 @ 8:31pm