“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Supervisor of Intelligence Estimate Hailed for Preventing War with Iran




  • BIG LIE AGAINST IRANIAN,,THEY DONT WANT TO MAKE NUCLEAR BOMB,,THE USA MADE A BIG LIE TO ATTACK IRAN,,THE SAME AS IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN,,FUCK OBAMA AND NETANYAHU,,THEY ARE TERRORISTS
     · 18 
  • colourmegone
    Astonishing that a special prize should be awarded to public servants who simply told the truth to their employers, i.e. the public. The security state is now so entrenched that it's difficult to see the end of it, but at least it's now under discussion and that's progress.
     · 10 

All Comments (44)


  • JAMES BELL
    THATS RIGHT.
     ·  in reply to ensgavry (Show the comment)
  • JAMES BELL
    no one fuckes with IRAN <3 p="">
     · 
  • ensgavry
    Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and has allowed repeated inspections. All of which has found that it in fact does not have nuclear weapons. Under the treaty, it is allowed to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. All this, and Israel and the Israel- firsters, at least a good portion of them, are still pushing for us to go to war,
     · 
  • ensgavry
    Israel has hundreds of nukes. Their fear is not that they will be attacked by a nuclear Iran, rather their fear is that a nuclear Iran would be able to defend itself from an attack from Israel.
     · 
  • connieusa27
    American law forbids foreign aid to nuclear powers that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, such as israel. Which is why America and israel both have a policy of no comment when israel's nuclear program comes up.
     · 
  • connieusa27
    Israel gives the finger to nuclear inspectors, but Iran must be destroyed for exercising its 100% legal option to develop nuclear energy.
     · 
  • jayhackworth
    Oh yeah - Israel and America (my country) have already committed multiple acts of war- so 'what can we do"..... it's already happening. They have their panties in a bunch waiting for a nominal response from Iran for the assassinations ,financial confiscating, embargo, so they can go total.
     ·  in reply to Melpheos1er (Show the comment)
  • jayhackworth
    Disregard Mossad and the Israel Lobby in Washington who pitched the BS and deceit about Iraq.It wasn't "faulty intelligence" -it was utterly false. Netanyahu could use a miniature thermonuclear device shoved up his rectum and set off. When will hypocritical Israel follow Iran;'s example, sign the NPT and permit inspections? Trick question.
     ·  in reply to Melpheos1er (Show the comment)








15 comments:

  1. bash israel in 3,2,1

    ReplyDelete
  2. America has been at war with Iran since 1978

    Don't want to admit it?

    Fine, doesn't stop the Iranians from killing Americans

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the last 14 threads, Israel has been mentioned 1,494 times. More times that Iran, Russia, Iraq, France, Sudan, Michelle Obama's ass, Lady Gaga's rifle bra, Sandy Hook combined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I claim the mention of Gaga's rifle bra.

      Delete
  4. In the last 5 years, numerous undeclared nuclear sites have been exposed in Iran

    Iran's stockpiles of 20% has amassed 20 fold and now Iran has enough uranium for 5 to 8 bombs.

    Iran has kidnapped, tortured and murdered numerous westerners.

    Iran has armed many rebel islamists group seeking to topple western friendly arab and african nations.

    but Iran aint at war with the USA


    sure....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Israel has 150 nuclear weapons and is hostile to Iran. That should be reason enough for any sane power to aspire to a nuclear deterrence.

      Delete
    2. Israel was not 'hostile' as you put it, to Iran until the Shah was overthrown.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations

      Delete
  5. I don’t care about your country. I care about the USA and the unsustainable damage being done to it by those that will do anything to subvert the interests of the American public to an unimportant and meddling foreign power. The loss of personal rights and freedoms in the US is directly related to the cause that has subverted US interests to it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The loss of personal rights and freedoms in the US is directly related to the cause that has subverted US interests to it.

    "directly related" too.

    Israel is responsible for Big Sis and Big Bro?

    Israel?

    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Look, we were in Saudi Arabia to protect the oil. This was what pissed the Osama types off, we being on their sacred ground. We were in there before Israel even existed. Back in the thirties, even earlier. Israel had nothing to do with us being in Saudi Arabia. And Iran has been insane since the Shah left, and the mullahs took over, breathing fire against all the west, the US, and Israel. Israel had nothing to do with that either. Israel didn't install the Shah. We and the Brits did, in the aftermath of WWII and the in the Cold War. And the world would be better off if the Shah were still there, too. And the Iranians too, there is more repression now than earlier.

    I almost think I will wake up one morning and read here that there were no Jews in the World Trade Center, and that they were brought down by bombs, not planes.

    out

    ReplyDelete
  7. Israel’s attempt to steer American foreign policy has been nowhere more evident than in the sustained campaign to move the United States in the direction of war with Iran, a war that serves no American interest unless one believes that Tehran is willing to spend billions of dollars to develop a nuclear weapon only to hand off the result to a terrorist group.

    The most recent overtures by the Israeli government have pushed the United States to make a declaration that negotiations with Iran have failed and will not be continued. For Israel, this is a necessary first step towards an American military intervention, as failed negotiations mean there is no way out of the impasse but by war, if the Iranians do not unilaterally concede on every disputed point.

    Two recent op-eds have elaborated the argument, promoting the necessity of convincing the Israelis that the United States is absolutely serious about using military force against Iran if the Iranians seek to retain any capacity to enrich uranium. One might note in passing that this new red line, sometimes also called the abstract “capability” to create a nuclear weapon, has been achieved by moving the goal posts back considerably. At one time Iran was threatened with a military response if it actually acquired a nuclear weapon (which is still the official position of the Obama administration), but earlier benchmarks within that policy saying that enrichment should not exceed 20 percent or that the enrichment should not take place on Iranian soil have been abandoned in favor of what now amounts to zero tolerance. Those who note that Iran, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is under IAEA inspection, has a clear legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes have been ignored in favor of those who believe that Iran is somehow a special case.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On August 17, the Washington Post and The New York Times featured op-eds explaining why the United States must do more to convince Israel not to attack Iran this year. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel’s military intelligence who is believed to be close to the country’s political leadership, argued in the Post that Obama must basically convince the Israelis that he will use force against Iran if sanctions do not convince the country’s leadership to abandon enrichment of nuclear fuel. Over at the Times, Dennis Ross, a former senior U.S. diplomat who has been described as Israel’s lawyer, made pretty much the same arguments. Both advocated giving Israel refueling tankers and special munitions that would enable an attack on Iran to be more effective, thereby widening the window of opportunity for sanctions to work, in light of Israeli arguments that hardened Iranian sites might soon be invulnerable to attack. Ross advocates giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu effectively a blank check, asking him what he will need to attack Iran and granting the Israeli government commitments for a full range of U.S. military support. Both Yadlin and Ross argue that it is necessary to create the conditions for Israel to delay a possible attack until 2013. As Yadlin puts it, “if the United States wants Israel to give sanctions and diplomacy more time, Israelis must know that they will not be left high and dry if these options fail.”

    Assuming that Ross and Yadlin are speaking for the Israeli government, which is almost certainly the case, Israel is essentially demanding a commitment from Washington to attack Iran unless the issue of Iran’s ability to enrich uranium is resolved through negotiation or through Iranian surrender of that right. In return, Israel will not attack Iran before the American election. So in effect, Washington would be promising to fight a war later if Israel does not start one now.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Israel knows it cannot successfully attack Iran unilaterally and must have the United States along to do the heavy lifting. It also knows that the threat to attack Iran before the election is a powerful weapon, with neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama welcoming such a potentially game-changing diversion from their debate on the economy and jobs.

    Critics like Arnaud de Borchgrave have correctly noted that many former generals and intelligence officers in the United States and Israel have, in fact, decided that the basic premise is wrong. Iran does not pose a threat that could not be contained even if it does some day make the political decision to obtain a crude nuclear device. Launching a new war in the Middle East to prevent it from doing so would create “mayhem” throughout the region, guarantee a breakdown in Egypt-Israel relations, and create a perfect breeding ground for the civil war in Syria to spill out and lead to turmoil among all of its neighbors. American ships in the Persian Gulf would be attacked, unrest in Bahrain would turn to revolution, and the Palestinians would stage a new intifada. Israel would be bombarded from Lebanon and from Iran. Gas prices would soar, economic recovery would stall worldwide, and European nations now struggling to deal with unprecedented unemployment levels would watch the eurozone collapse before the rage of hundreds of thousands protesters in the streets. Americans would again become the targets of international terrorism.

    And there is another serious objection to going along with the Israeli government’s thinking. Israel is by its own volition not an ally of the United States in any technical sense because alliances are troublesome things that require rules of engagement and reciprocity, limiting the partners’ ability to act independently. If Israel obtains a virtual commitment from the United States to go to war in 2013, it would mean enjoying the benefits of having a powerful patron to do its fighting without any obligation in return, beyond delaying unilateral military action until a more suitable time. A guarantee from Washington for Israel’s security which still permits unilateral action by Netanyahu is all too reminiscent of the entangling arrangements that led to World War I. The fact that the murder of an Austrian Archduke in the Balkans led to a world war that killed tens of millions was due to promises not unlike what Israel is demanding today.

    If the United States commits to unconditional support for an Israeli attack on Iran, it will be a surrender of one of the defining attributes of national sovereignty: the power to choose when and where to go to war. Amos Yadlin suggests at one point that President Obama go to Congress and get approval in advance to take military action “to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a military nuclear capability.” Such a pre-approval for war certainly raises constitutional issues, but it also creates a virtual casus belli because Iran already has the “capability” to enrich uranium for potential military uses. A guarantee precludes any consideration that the United States might actually have an overriding national interest to avoid a war. It denies that the United States should be able to exercise complete sovereignty over the issue of Iran, and it also freezes the status quo, as if new ways of looking at the problem of the Iranian nuclear program could not evolve over the next few months.

    Washington should make no commitment to anyone about what it will do vis-à-vis Iran in 2013 no matter what inducements are offered. As the 19th-century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston put it, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Let America’s actual interests dictate U.S. foreign policy.


    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. THIS DESERVES REPEATING:

    And there is another serious objection to going along with the Israeli government’s thinking. Israel is by its own volition not an ally of the United States in any technical sense because alliances are troublesome things that require rules of engagement and reciprocity, limiting the partners’ ability to act independently. If Israel obtains a virtual commitment from the United States to go to war in 2013, it would mean enjoying the benefits of having a powerful patron to do its fighting without any obligation in return, beyond delaying unilateral military action until a more suitable time. A guarantee from Washington for Israel’s security which still permits unilateral action by Netanyahu is all too reminiscent of the entangling arrangements that led to World War I. The fact that the murder of an Austrian Archduke in the Balkans led to a world war that killed tens of millions was due to promises not unlike what Israel is demanding today.

    If the United States commits to unconditional support for an Israeli attack on Iran, it will be a surrender of one of the defining attributes of national sovereignty: the power to choose when and where to go to war. Amos Yadlin suggests at one point that President Obama go to Congress and get approval in advance to take military action “to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a military nuclear capability.” Such a pre-approval for war certainly raises constitutional issues, but it also creates a virtual casus belli because Iran already has the “capability” to enrich uranium for potential military uses. A guarantee precludes any consideration that the United States might actually have an overriding national interest to avoid a war. It denies that the United States should be able to exercise complete sovereignty over the issue of Iran, and it also freezes the status quo, as if new ways of looking at the problem of the Iranian nuclear program could not evolve over the next few months.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Israel must run the United Nations, too --

    UN Sanctions Against Iran
    www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indxiran.htm
    Although the Security Council may soon vote on a resolution, Council ... This article examines the economic impact of sanctions against Iran on Afghan refugees. .... UN sanctions against Iran under the so-called "United Nations Act." Yadegari ...
    Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in ...
    www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sc9948.doc.htm
    Jun 9, 2010 – Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 ... the threats made against Iran by that country and the United States, ..... and the support of the overwhelming majority of nations.
    U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran - NYTimes.com
    www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/middleeast/10sanctions.html
    Jun 9, 2010 – Ambassadors to the United Nations, from right, Susan E. Rice of the United ... round of sanctions against Iran's nuclear program on Wednesday, but ... United Nations on Wednesday before the vote to impose sanctions on Iran.
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 - Wikipedia, the ...
    en.wikipedia.org/.../United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1...
    Vote: For: 12 Abs. : 1 Against: 2. Subject: Non-proliferation. Iran. Result: Adopted ... a fourth round of sanctions against the country, was adopted by twelve votes ...
    U.N. imposes another round of sanctions on Iran
    www.washingtonpost.com › World › Middle East › Iran
    Jun 10, 2010 – UNITED NATIONS -- After several months of grueling diplomacy, the U.N. ... Obama hails Security Council vote on Iran. President Obama is welcoming the U.N. Security Council's new sanctions against a defiant Iran over its ...
    PolitiFact | Paul Ryan says the Obama administration 'watered down ...
    www.politifact.com/.../paul-ryan-says-obama-administration-watered...
    Oct 15, 2012 – The United Nations and other nations have joined in sanctions ... The U.N. Security Council in 2010 voted to sanction Iran but didn't ... (For a detailed look at U.S. sanctions against Iran, the Congressional Research Service ...
    United Nations Approves Economic Sanctions Against Iran
    oilprice.com › Geopolitics › International
    Jun 12, 2010 – United Nations Approves Economic Sanctions Against Iran ... aimed at punishing Iran over its suspect nuclear program by a 12-2 vote.
    UN Security Council Resolutions on Iran | Arms Control Association
    www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran
    The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has adopted six resolutions as part of ... Fourteen countries voted in favor of the resolution; only Qatar voted against it. ... The resolution imposes sanctions against both the state of Iran and Iranian ...
    Iran - FRANCE ONU
    www.franceonu.org/spip.php?article3868
    “For years now, Iran has been ignoring the international community's ... to remain united and to maintain sanctions against the Iranian regime as long as it ... of the opening debate of the General Assembly of the United Nations. .... 86 countries voting in favour (6 more than in 2010) and 32 voting against (8 less than in 2010).
    Security Council Sanctions Against Iran « Liveshots
    liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com › On Air Now › Anchors and Reporters
    Jun 9, 2010 – After nearly half a year of tough negotiations, the United Nations Security ... a U.S. sponsored sanctions resolution against Iran over its suspect nuclear program, ... Turkey and Brazil held up the 10 a.m scheduled vote, as their ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was only going to post this about King Parking Lot - but got led afield

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

      Andrew Roberts: Shakespeare Has a (Parking) Lot to Answer For
      Richard III may now get fairer treatment than the spin-doctoring playwright offered 420 years ago.


      goodnight

      Delete