Now that the possibilty seems more real...

[TheJenn88]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/09/politics/main1483022.shtml?cmp=EM8707

 

Having read that, from a more credible source, it seems like it's becoming more and more of a reality. Do you think the USA would strike on Iran? Do you think they should?

[hugo]

Gotta be careful with what comes from ole Sy.

 

From:

 

Hersh’s History

Ted Kennedy, take note.

 

By Barbara Comstock

 

As we proceed through this process, one place we shouldn't look to for reliable information is the sensationalized reporting of Seymour Hersh. A little walk down memory lane will serve to show his history of questionable reporting — a history that had been virtually ignored of late (outside of the likes of the Media Research Center) until the Washington Post's Howie Kurtz took note this week.

 

But before that, guess who said the following about the 1997 Sy Hersh book, The Dark Side of Camelot, which is critical of former President John Kennedy? "This book is a fiction and we don't intend to comment any further on this maliciousness and innuendo." That would be the same Senator Ted Kennedy who now virtually echoes Hersh's allegations. Kennedy historian Arthur Schlesinger called Hersh, "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

 

That book — which included claims that President Kennedy brought dozens of prostitutes to the White House; that he was treated for venereal diseases; that he had been married to a Palm Beach socialite before he married Jackie; and that Ted Kennedy served as a "bagman" for the president in the crucial West Virginia primary, paying off county chairmen including Charles Peters, now publisher of Washington Monthly — was denounced by scores of Democrats when it came out, beginning with Ted Kennedy and other Kennedy stalwarts such as Schlesinger and former presidential advisor Theodore Sorensen. Sorensen called it "a pathetic collection of wild stories." Kerry Biographer Douglas Brinkley said Hersh had "squandered" his credibility and "one can only assume he did it for money." On NBC's Today Show, host Matt Lauer was apoplectic in denouncing the book. (Charles Peters, for the record, has said Hersh wouldn't listen to his claims that the payoffs didn't happen — despite the fact that he interviewed Peters five times.)

 

Back then, Ted Kennedy called Hersh's book "scurrilous." Now, seven years later, his public statements are virtually identical to those of his former nemesis. Kennedy recently claimed, "...shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management." Apparently when the target of one of Hersh's thinly, anonymously sourced screeds is a Republican president, Senator Kennedy is happy to join in the kind of "maliciousness and innuendo" for which Hersh — a longtime leftist critic who worked on Senator Gene McCarthy's 1968 campaign — is known.

 

The press has virtually ignored Sy Hersh's past exploits. Most TV hosts have introduced him citing his My Lai stories alone and ignoring his long history of dubious reporting.

 

But Hersh is best understood as the Geraldo of print investigative reporters. While his untruths and near slander have been eclectic and bipartisan — attacking everyone from President Kennedy and his brother Ted to Henry Kissinger and General Barry McCaffrey — they have always been extremely antiwar. Of Hersh's 1983 book, The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, Martin Peretz, the liberal editor-in-chief of The New Republic, wrote: "there is hardly anything [in the book] that shouldn't be suspect." In 2001, he leveled charges against General Barry McCaffrey for his actions in the first Gulf War, claiming that McCaffrey's troops or troops under his command fired on penned-up prisoners and Iraqi civilians who had raised a white flag. McCaffrey said in 2001, "Hersh and his article lack integrity. That's the bottom line. He maligns the characters of 26,000 great young soldiers who conducted a 400 kilometer attack successfully, where thank god we only lost eight killed and 36 wounded... What he's doing is recycling charges that were investigated in 1991."

 

Hirsh's Al Capone safe-opening moment came when he set out to base large parts of his Kennedy book on a group of supposedly unknown documents about JFK which turned out to be forgeries. As Salon reported in 2000 in an article by David Rubien:

 

"The smokiest of the smoking guns Hersh planned to include in the book was his discovery of a supposedly authenticated handwritten note from Marilyn Monroe to JFK in which the actress demanded the president create a $600,000 trust fund for her ailing mother. The quid pro quo was that Monroe wouldn't reveal her and JFK's affair. A contract spelling out the terms of the trust fund was signed by both of them. This was sizzling stuff, and there were lots of other damning documents from the same cache. Hersh used them to get NBC to sign a $2.5 million contract to make a Kennedy documentary, and when the network pulled out Hersh signed with ABC for the same amount. But when ABC had the documents tested, they turned out to be phony."

 

As NR's John Miller reported in 2001, Hersh obtained those documents through Lawrence X. Cusack, a man who claimed his father was a lawyer for Kennedy. When the papers were shown to be forgeries, Cusack was prosecuted and went to prison. In the course of Cusack's trial, Assistant U.S. attorney Paul A. Engelmayer accused Hersh of playing "a little fast and loose with the facts." In reviewing Hersh's Kennedy book, the Baltimore Sun's Jules Witcover wrote, "... Hersh's attributions generally fall short of normal journalistic yardsticks. More important, many of his conclusions are weakly substantiated by his research and highly questionable." Witcover also noted, of Hersh's writing: "Particularly arguable are the innuendoes in which he indulges and the conclusions to which he jumps on the basis of his raw material."But that wasn't how Hersh saw it. "There's a suspension of belief when it comes to the Kennedys," he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "It's a cult. We want to believe." Now Ted Kennedy is a Hersh cult follower; and Katie Couric essentially threw rose petals at Hersh when he appeared on the Today Show this week. These anti-war ideologues want to believe anything bad about President Bush.

 

But instead of listening to the rantings of Sy Hersh and his fellow cultists, we should let the government investigators who began this process themselves follow the investigative trail. That is far preferable to glorifying a hack who acknowledged himself that "If the standard for being fired was being wrong on a story, I would have been fired long ago."

 

Having shown that. There is no doubt the world does not need a nuclear Iran and that a political change is needed. There are only two countries with the balls to act unilaterally: Isreal and the U.S. The UN is a paper tiger at best. I think we should persuade Isreal to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

[hugo]

deleted double post

[Gallytuck]

You can bet your arse Iran will be getting some missile love from the U.S.

 

I'm starting to see something into the story some people are talking about which says there's something in that region which the powerful world leaders want and it's got nothing to do with oil or killing terrorists.

[atlantic]

You can bet your arse Iran will be getting some missile love from the U.S.

 

I'm starting to see something into the story some people are talking about which says there's something in that region which the powerful world leaders want and it's got nothing to do with oil or killing terrorists.

It's only a matter of time!

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

Well Well Welly well well......

 

looks like a bigger deficeit, more pissed off terrorists, more dead soldiers, more inflation is on the way. How exciting...

[fullauto]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/02/world/main1461878.shtml

 

 

I saw this type of missle before in a publication back in 1996... It's a Chinease design! WTF!? Over!

 

China is REALLY starting to piss me off!

 

Fucking Communists!

[Gallytuck]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/02/world/main1461878.shtml

 

 

I saw this type of missle before in a publication back in 1996... It's a Chinease design! WTF!? Over!

 

China is REALLY starting to piss me off!

 

Fucking Communists!

 

Learning how to speak Mandarin might be a good idea.

[fullauto]

Learning how to speak Mandarin might be a good idea.

 

No shit! good call

[slip_knot]

Iraq was stomped because they may have secretly had nuclear weapons. Iran may get stomped for trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

What I do not understand is this. Neither of these countries have done anything more than North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and possibly others.

 

So why will the others be left alone ? Why were they not stopped acquiring a nuclear capability ?

 

I don't believe it really is as simple as the Iraq and Iran produce oil

[TheJenn88]

Iraq was stomped because they may have secretly had nuclear weapons. Iran may get stomped for trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

What I do not understand is this. Neither of these countries have done anything more than North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and possibly others.

 

So why will the others be left alone ? Why were they not stopped acquiring a nuclear capability ?

 

I don't believe it really is as simple as the Iraq and Iran produce oil

 

I don't know about you, but I like to compare the situation Iran and its president is in with the situation to that of Hitler and the countries around him.

 

 

Past:

Hitler: grrrr I'm mean, I shall kill all who are undeserving!

Other countries: Oh, em, gee, what a lunatic! Let's leave him alone

People: dead

 

Potential Future:

Khatami: Wheee! LET'S ERASE ISRAEL!

Other countries: Oh, em, gee, what a lunatic! Let's leave him alone

People: dead

 

 

Do you now see why?

[builder]

Iranians have been getting shafted by the US gov for a long time now. Surprisingly (NOT) misinformation on behalf of the British gov was behind it.

 

And losing income from oil was also the real issue behind the propoganda.

 

Surprise surprise. (in my best Gomer Pile impersonation.)

 

The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.

 

Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears.

 

Acting on the fears created by Britain the United States and Britain began to publicly denounce Mossadegh's policies for Iran as harmful to the country.

 

In October of 1952, Mossadegh declared that Britain was "an enemy", and cut all diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom. In November and December 1952, British intelligence officials suggested to American intelligence that the prime minister should be ousted. The new US administration under Dwight Eisenhower and the British government under Winston Churchill agreed to work together toward Mossadegh's removal.

 

On April 4, 1953, US Central Intelligence Agency director Allen W. Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. Finally, according to The New York Times, in early June, American and British intelligence officials met again, this time in Beirut, and put the finishing touches on the strategy. Soon afterward, according to his later published accounts, the chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran to direct it.

 

The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community.

 

More here.

[Hamza123]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/09/politics/main1483022.shtml?cmp=EM8707

 

Having read that, from a more credible source, it seems like it's becoming more and more of a reality. Do you think the USA would strike on Iran? Do you think they should?

 

Okay Jenn... Let me put you in this scenario... However, you're the president of the USA.

 

What do you do?

 

(BTW, I am only curious)

[Hamza123]

Iranians have been getting shafted by the US gov for a long time now. Surprisingly (NOT) misinformation on behalf of the British gov was behind it.

 

And losing income from oil was also the real issue behind the propoganda.

 

Surprise surprise. (in my best Gomer Pile impersonation.)

 

 

 

More here.

 

Damn thats scarry...

 

Some time ago China Russian and Iran formed a trading block, China Is very dependant on Irainian oil, If the US try to shut that down with a war, China will have little option but to try to prevent it. They share a very long border with Iran, and would feel threatened by a US occupation, so a defensive strategy would also be required. In short the economic cost to China of a potential US Invaision of Iran would be huge, they are unlikly to take it lying down and have stated as much. Wether Russian would choose to stand with them is another matter, they are certainly not about to back the US position.

And yes it is clear that the US dont give a monkeys about anyone elses opinions, it is a very dumb and dangerous stance.

There is no reason why the cold war cant start again.

 

And as for economic dominance, go look at the labels on the products for sale... Made in China...they might just choose to turn it off. They cant threaten thier ability to produce (oil supply) and placate them with offers of buisness. It does not add up.

[TheJenn88]

Okay Jenn... Let me put you in this scenario... However, you're the president of the USA.

 

What do you do?

 

(BTW, I am only curious)

 

Kill off dem ******s in teh south then microwave tem towelheads. Long live white (north) America!

 

 

Actually, I don't know what I'd do. If I were president, I'd probably take a long vacation, do some golfing, have an affair, and then kill some muslims.

 

No, REALLY actually, no clue. I guess I'd try and have more of a covert op just to get to the root of the problem instead of have mass casualties, BUT iran needs to be fixed.

[hugo]

Damn thats scarry...

 

Some time ago China Russian and Iran formed a trading block, China Is very dependant on Irainian oil, If the US try to shut that down with a war, China will have little option but to try to prevent it. They share a very long border with Iran, and would feel threatened by a US occupation, so a defensive strategy would also be required. In short the economic cost to China of a potential US Invaision of Iran would be huge, they are unlikly to take it lying down and have stated as much. Wether Russian would choose to stand with them is another matter, they are certainly not about to back the US position.

And yes it is clear that the US dont give a monkeys about anyone elses opinions, it is a very dumb and dangerous stance.

There is no reason why the cold war cant start again.

 

And as for economic dominance, go look at the labels on the products for sale... Made in China...they might just choose to turn it off. They cant threaten thier ability to produce (oil supply) and placate them with offers of buisness. It does not add up.

 

REMOVE HEAD FROM ASS. CHINA AND IRAN SHARE NO BORDER.

 

Actually the countries with trade deficits are likely to be more dominant economically.

[builder]

Damn thats scarry...

 

Some time ago China Russian and Iran formed a trading block, China Is very dependant on Irainian oil, If the US try to shut that down with a war, China will have little option but to try to prevent it. They share a very long border with Iran, and would feel threatened by a US occupation, so a defensive strategy would also be required. In short the economic cost to China of a potential US Invaision of Iran would be huge, they are unlikly to take it lying down and have stated as much. Wether Russian would choose to stand with them is another matter, they are certainly not about to back the US position.

And yes it is clear that the US dont give a monkeys about anyone elses opinions, it is a very dumb and dangerous stance.

There is no reason why the cold war cant start again.

 

And as for economic dominance, go look at the labels on the products for sale... Made in China...they might just choose to turn it off. They cant threaten thier ability to produce (oil supply) and placate them with offers of buisness. It does not add up.

 

 

As hugo a gogo kindly indicated, it's Russia and China that share a border.

 

I ask you this one question. If Mossadegh managed to infiltrate the US branch of the CIA, and his propaganda campaign to ouster Eisenhower was successful, do you think the US plebs would be all chummy and agreeable with Mossadegh? We are talking about Time magazine's Man of the Year 1951.

 

They heard him in 1951, however. On March 8, the day after Ali Razmara, Iran's able, pro-Western Premier, was assassinated, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian Majilis his proposal to nationalize Iran's oil. In a few weeks a wave of anti-foreign feeling, assisted by organized terrorism, swept him into the premiership.

 

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., most of whose stock is owned by the British government, had been paying Iran much less than the British Government took from the company in taxes. The U.S. State Department warned Britain that Iran might explode unless it got a better deal, but the U.S. did not press the issue firmly enough to make London listen. Mossadegh's nationalization bill scared the company into concessions that were made too late. The Premier, whose mind runs in a deep single track, was committed to nationalization-and much to the surprise of the British, he went through with it, right down to the expulsion of the British technicians without whom the Iranians cannot run the Abadan refinery.

 

Results: I) the West lost the Iranian oil supply; 2) the Iranian government lost the oil payments; 3) this loss stopped all hope of economic progress in Iran and disrupted the political life of the country; 4) in the ensuing confusion, Iran's Tudeh (Communist) Party made great gains which it hoped to see reflected in the national elections, due to begin this week.

 

Tears & Laughter. Mossadegh does not promise his country a way out of this nearly hopeless situation. He would rather see the ruin of Iran than give in to the British, who, in his opinion, corrupted and exploited his country. He is not in any sense pro-Russian, but he intends to stick to his policies even though he knows they might lead to control of Iran by the Kremlin.

 

The way I see it, the Iranians have every right to run their own show, and arrange to sell their own fucking oil to whomever they choose. If the Chinese make a deal with the Iranians, then so fucking be it.

 

When the PNAC bigwigs finally realise that no more batters are stepping up to the plate, and they might have to actually get their own hands bloodied, then we might see a change in the wind.

 

Until that time, question why you are waving a flag for some cunt who just wants to profit from carnage and human sacrifice.

[Hamza123]

REMOVE HEAD FROM ASS. CHINA AND IRAN SHARE NO BORDER.

 

Actually the countries with trade deficits are likely to be more dominant economically.

 

It's not a real border, it was an abstract statement...