Article

2007-03-28 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-03-28 15:29|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Although normally being in full support, and that all of us here want to see Iran's nuclear program 'abolished' by all means necessary, does this not all seem to perfect.
The US army as I've read today is hoarding just outside of Iran's boarders, with massive war games only a few miles off the coast of Iran, this just all seems like the perfect excuse to go to war over.
We have all been here waiting to see what Blair will do, and now there appears to be mass confusion over what is happening (Iran convinced it's there water, Britain claiming it Iraq's, break of Geneva convention) was that not what happened with Afghanistan (yes we're glad it happened, but it happened in mass confusion, same as Iraq... where are the WMD's)
Although Iran is a threat, if this is all one big lie to go to war over... and please hear me out, it could be one big cover up just to lead and convince the British and American public that war is the answer (which it is, but 75% people in the UK are already fed up with the other 2)

Sorry to cast doubts into the integrety on British and US Governments, but this wouldn't be the first time, evidence can be made up, neither side wants to lose face. Convince me otherwise. e-mail whatever!

Posted by Devilstoenail">Devilstoenail 2007-03-28 15:58|| 2007-03-28 15:58|| Front Page Top

#2 Unless you're sayin that these sailors are imaginary, I maybe don't understand.

Are you saying the coordinates are bogus?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-03-28 16:09|| 2007-03-28 16:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Quite possibly, no no, but possibly the sailors were sent into Iranian waters, knowing that they would be captured, then who do we believe? I don't know, I'm just saying it sounds to perfect to be true if you like and it could be a massive publicity stunt to try and boost ratings to go to war (which we should)

Posted by Devilstoenail">Devilstoenail 2007-03-28 16:20|| 2007-03-28 16:20|| Front Page Top

#4 this just all seems like the perfect excuse to go to war over.
Yeah. Because war is just so fun. Why we do it just for sport! Because we LOVE IT!

Posted by eLarson 2007-03-28 16:22|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-03-28 16:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Yes, Devilstoenail, because we all know that BUSH LIED! Right? and HALLIBURTON WANTS IRAN'S OIL! and BLAIR LIED TOO! just so we could GET IRAQ'S OIL!!! because it's so much BETTER now that oil prices have gone up, right? What next? 9/11 was an inside job? the attacks in London and Madrid were organized by the Mossad? the Japs were tricked into attacking Pearl Harbor?

Try to think. Quit reading the NYT.

There is no need to manufacture a casus belli -- we've already got ample supplies of that, thanks to thirty years of rule by the mad mullahs.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-28 16:47|| 2007-03-28 16:47|| Front Page Top

#6 Gee, perhaps you could weigh the relative credability of the two parties, one a dictatorial theocracy with a history of lying and seizing hostages, and the other a democratically elected government in a country with a free press and a history of openness. But I guess you already have, huh?

Posted by Mark E. 2007-03-28 16:48|| 2007-03-28 16:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Hmmm. Is Rosie O'donnell using the pseudonym
"Devilstoenail" now?

Posted by GK 2007-03-28 16:49|| 2007-03-28 16:49|| Front Page Top

#8 DT - makes perfect senses, cause we all know - the Iranians would NEVER be party to an illegal kidnapping.

Posted by DMFD 2007-03-28 16:54|| 2007-03-28 16:54|| Front Page Top

#9 GET IRAQ'S OIL!
Yeah, I got mine--it came on Tuesday. It was the super-duper-secret payoff to all of us war supporters. Bet you those Leftards didn't know how right they've been all along. I keep mine behind the couch downstairs, because I like the way it sounds when I thump the barrels.

:-D Do you think actually reading this makes them realize how dump that war-for-oil meme has been?

Posted by eLarson 2007-03-28 16:55|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-03-28 16:55|| Front Page Top

#10 Moby

Posted by mrp 2007-03-28 16:56|| 2007-03-28 16:56|| Front Page Top

#11
Actually I have come to a similar conclusion. None of anything is real. This is just a dream. It's all about me.

However, in my dream we bomb them back to the stone age.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2007-03-28 16:59|| 2007-03-28 16:59|| Front Page Top

#12 Take it easy on toenail. He's not saying he thinks it is a conspiracy, he's just saying maybe. I find it hard to blame him for being skeptical about it. He's not an American (all Americans should know better than to think Iran wouldn't do this) so perhaps his country doesn't view Iran the way ours does. This move is so mystifyingly fucking stupid, I can see it being tough to wrap an inexperienced (WRT Iran) brain around.

The inportaby part is, he wants them wacked anyway.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-03-28 17:08|| 2007-03-28 17:08|| Front Page Top

#13 Jesus Christ I'm an idiot. That word is supposed to be important.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-03-28 17:10|| 2007-03-28 17:10|| Front Page Top

#14 Take it easy on toenail. He's not saying he thinks it is a conspiracy, he's just saying maybe. I find it hard to blame him for being skeptical about it.

He's not skeptical - he's a true-blue Moby-style provocateur.

Posted by mrp 2007-03-28 17:30|| 2007-03-28 17:30|| Front Page Top

#15 In June 2004, eight British sailors and marines were detained for three days in Iran after being seized during another routine operation. They were paraded blindfold on television and forced to apologise for their "mistake."

On that occasion Iran insisted that the British boats -- which it has not yet returned -- were intercepted only after they entered Iranian waters on the Shatt al-Arab.

Sorry, Brits have no excuse for allowing Iran to again publically humiliate their military.

Thus, Brits should get troops back, roll out serious career ending sanctions on appropriate chain of command, exact double + payback on the slightest Iranian transgression in that area-I'm talking body count and reduction of iranian naval assets, and finally, don't let it happen again.

Posted by Lanny Ddub 2007-03-28 17:41|| 2007-03-28 17:41|| Front Page Top

#16 If the Brits really desire to make a statement, Gordon Brown would stand up in Parliament and announce an emergency 50% increase in the MoD budget for the current fiscal year. Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by mrp 2007-03-28 17:48|| 2007-03-28 17:48|| Front Page Top

#17 DevilToe Nail Man, talk to yur, dad.

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-03-28 18:24|| 2007-03-28 18:24|| Front Page Top

#18 I'd prefer the SAS to get Sadrs head and airdrop it into the Iranian home of Imonajihad.

He obviously can't cope with English, so use the universal language.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-03-28 19:38|| 2007-03-28 19:38|| Front Page Top

#19 Guys, Devilstoenail is rhodesiafever's son. They live in England, and both father and son are on the side of the angels.

Devilstoenail dear, Rantburgers play rough. But stick it out, learn what they have to teach, and they'll come to respect you as much as they do your father. You came here because you wanted to learn more than BBC drivel, and so you shall. And you'll get one round the ear 'ole to let you know when you absorbed some BBC rot without noticing. That's 'cause they aren't treating you like a kid. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-28 20:37|| 2007-03-28 20:37|| Front Page Top

#20 Actually I think the opposite Devil, I think the mullahs was getting scared that W was going to attack and took some leverage.

Posted by djohn66 2007-03-28 20:44|| 2007-03-28 20:44|| Front Page Top

#21 OT

Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

Re: prosecutor-purgegate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10315.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10322.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldnt play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldnt be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldnt talk about it.

Posted by Swan">Swan 2007-03-28 20:55|| 2007-03-28 20:55|| Front Page Top

#22 funny that the report didn't factor in the 5X as many Clintonista-purgegate-prosecutors that were fired and replaced with obedient cronies ie, 'friends of Bill' in the 1990s...

Posted by Swan Dive 2007-03-28 21:14|| 2007-03-28 21:14|| Front Page Top

#23 Or maybe it was aliens. Weekly World News told me so.

Posted by Pappy 2007-03-28 21:16|| 2007-03-28 21:16|| Front Page Top

#24 Bat Boy!

Posted by Mark E. 2007-03-28 21:25|| 2007-03-28 21:25|| Front Page Top

#25 Devilstoe....the Iranians notified the Brits of the GPS co-ordinates. Unfortunately for them, those were in Iraq waters. Two days later, the Iranians changed the co-ordinates to Iran water. Iranians lie, always have, always will. It's hereditary.
Where is the Geneva convention outrage from the EU rights organizations regarding uniformed military captives being forced to wear an islamic headscarf for the cameras?

Posted by Phineter Thraviger 2007-03-28 21:28|| 2007-03-28 21:28|| Front Page Top

#26 The CIA has always preferred to hire "gentlemen" from the Ivy Leagues, Swan dear. It's nothing to do with being Left or Right, and everything to do with being One of Us. That crowd despise President Bush because he rejected them by going down to Texas -- even to the point of his accent -- much as a previous generation loathed FDR for betraying his class. (In fact Barbara Bush still won't speak FDR's name, that was so drilled into her in her youth.) Such is their loathing, that they've openly worked to sabotage whatever Bush does, even though he invaded Iraq based on CIA repeated assurances that Saddam Hussein had serious stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Equally, the mainstream media decided before the 2000 election that Bush was some sort of crazed Rightwing, radical Christian set to force us all to be baptized and study the Gospels instead of evolution in our schools. Based on the reportage I've seen in the New York Times, et all since the 2000 campaign, they haven't been interested in investigating anything that contradicts those memes -- with a few interesting exceptions. That's why I ended up here at Rantburg -- the news is raw, not predigested pap, and for the most part the commentary is startlingly well-informed. Stick around, Mr. Rutgers student, and you'll learn things well worth knowing.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-28 21:29|| 2007-03-28 21:29|| Front Page Top

#27 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Saveababykillademocrat 2007-03-28 23:24|| 2007-03-28 23:24|| Front Page Top