US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:22 pm

Amazing how little history of the Iraq wars some of you know. It's like because you believed the propaganda at the time, it can't be wrong.
Saddam had no WMD or programs for WMD after the first US invasion. It was detailed in a massive report by Iraq to the UN (and the US) that of course the US said it was lies. The UN inspectors couldn’t find any trace of WMD, but it is impossible to prove a negative.

GIThruster wrote: “The intel from every major power in Europe confirmed the intel that Iraq had WMD's.” The main source was from a defector named “Curveball” that the Europeans thought was off his rocker. The US intelligence agents latched onto it though as they had instructions to find something from their neocon bosses. Then passed this rehashed story around without naming the source, such that several other countries agencies believed the CIA must have found proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

GIThruster wrote: “Maybe you've forgotten that in 2001, Italian intelligence broke public the intel that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Nigeria”
A rather poor forgery from Italy. Remember Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger and reported back that it was not true? The Jewish neocons didn’t want to hear that and outed his wife who worked for the CIA as punishment. It was known to be a forgery before the invasion but was used as a major reason for invading. They just wanted the war and were looking for propaganda to justify it.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

The sanctions and continuous bombing of Iraq, years before the actual invasion were acts of war. The invasion itself was a war crime and the only reason it was not taken to court was because the winner of the war seldom is.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:44 pm

Given that this was figured out after the fact, it remains suspect as relevant to the road to war.

Saddam had a clear history in regards to WMD. He had previously demonstrated Means, Intent, and Opportunity. He also had acted on a number of occasions. Kurds, Iranians, etc.

Given his history, and self admitted exagerations, deception and attempt to create an image of ambiguity, it is fair to say that the road to war intel was easily received in 2002, early 2003. I saw it then, and it was convincing, especially at the time.

WMD was also not the only, nor primary reason to take Saddam out. Bigger wheels were turning, and rightly so. It just so happened that the most easily marketed product was the WMD bit. I thought then, I thought in 1991, and I still think now that taking out Saddam and his government was the right thing to do. I only wish we had done it sooner, and had a better plan for after.

The road to war in 1991 was also clear in regard to the reasons, WMD included. Not only had Saddam invaded Kuwait, he also at the time had a large WMD industry run by MSE. Post 1991, he was resistant and duplicious in making UNSCOM's WMD Team's job hard and complex. They admit that there were WMD equipment and material that was never accounted for. In fact, these items continued to show up for the entire period after 2003.
Iraq (Saddam) never intended to give it all up, and fully intended to re-establish what he had as soon as he got the West off his case and not paying attention anymore.

An interesting point is that some of the recovered materials post 2003, were clearly Iraqi, but also not trackable to previous programs and inventories as documented by UNSCOM. How did that happen? Hmmm.

Iraq declared to UNSCOM that at one time it held over 200,000 special munitions, either filled or unfilled, specifically designed for chemical or biological weapons. These included grenades, mortar shells, aerial bombs, artillery shells, rockets and missile warheads. Of those, Iraq claimed that it used or disposed of approximately 100,000 munitions filled with chemical weapons during the period of its war with Iran, which ended in 1988. With regard to its holdings as of January 1991, Iraq asserted that 127,941 filled and unfilled special munitions remained in the country. During the first Gulf War -- according to Iraq -- 41,998 munitions were destroyed by Allied bombing, and Iraq also said that it unilaterally destroyed 29,662 munitions after the first Gulf War. The remaining 56,281 special munitions were either destroyed or accounted for under UNSCOM supervision.

Iraq gained the ability to manufacture R-400 and DB-2 aerial bombs, chemical containers for 122mm rockets, and Al-Hussein missile warheads. Iraq had to import all other munition shells, but UNSCOM believed that Iraq also had the ability to empty conventional artillery shells and aerial bombs and refill them with chemical agents. Iraq had a wide array of munitions specially designed for chemical use, and some of them were used for more than one chemical agent.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

Chemical Weapons Were Found In Iraq

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/a ... aq/180872/

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:46 pm

Ladajo,

Given your history, it is fair to say that you believe in preemptive strikes and are not a believer in the UN definition of war crimes. You sound like you are a member of the Likud party.

The US government knew, or should have known, that Iraq did not have WMD nor were working on WMD at the time it invaded Iraq. Therefore it was a war crime to invade a country that had not attacked us and was no threat to us.

Iraqwatch wrote rather belligerent pieces and is no longer in existence. Of course some chemical munitions were left over after the Iraq Iran war. The records were in a real mess and they couldn’t find them . Do you really think Saddam would a kept a few rusting shells on purpose, in the circumstances?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait for the reasons.

The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."

I’ll bet you are also in favor of a pre-emptive strike against Iran too. You obviously agree with the “Clean break” paper that the neocons follow.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:36 pm

The US government knew, or should have known, that Iraq did not have WMD nor were working on WMD at the time it invaded Iraq. Therefore it was a war crime to invade a country that had not attacked us and was no threat to us.

A very wide and sweeping statement. I applaud your certainty, as you do the government of the day.

I like that you dug up the Blunder by Ambassador Gilspie in '90.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/world ... =7&src=pm/

I also like that you provide the obvious that Saddam wanted Kuwait for money. But you also miss a further dynamic in the argument, which is completely not apparent in Wikipedia. Saddam wanted Kuwait, as his next step was the Saudi fields. He himself had previously stated this, and was heard Loud and Clear by the other Arabs. Saddam viewed himself as the focal point of Arab Unity. He was destined to create the Pan-Arab Empire and be its great leader. he himself also stated this.

Saddam was meglomanaic. Many folks had many reasons to take him out. Many folks were sorely disappointed when he was not taken out in '91. As I alluded to previously, WMD was but a convenient marketing point to a large list of reasons to finish him. Saddam was not going to go quietly, and spend his days as a benevolent dictator. There was going to be another Middle-East War involving Iraq. He learned his lesson the first go around with Iran. He understood he needed a larger resource basis prior to initiating round two with them. Saddam was biding time post '91, so he could get back into full-on plans for Middle East dominance. He built up where he could militarily and powerbase wise, and had every intention of waiting the West out. He was winning/had effectively won the sanctions war, and was looking at breaking out of it completely in the short term. Then back to the master plan. The 2003 war was one of intent to take him out, and do so in terms managed by the West and other Arabs, not on his terms or initiative. It was not ever about "WMD".

Saddam's world vision was simple:
1.) Gain Leadership and Control over the other Arb States.
2.) Build a resource base and military that could once and for all take out Iran.
3.) Take out Iran
4.) Isolate Israel, as no real need to take them out physically nor confront the West over it.
5.) Expand his Arab Empire into Arab Africa.
6.) Go down as one of the Great World Leaders of All History, and Unifier of All Arabs.
7.) Eventually figure out what to do with the Turks and Israelis, but with the unified Arab World under him.

Yes, I do support pre-emptive actions when warranted.
Yes, I supported the taking down of Saddam, but for more in-depth reasons than you probably understand.
Yes, I have studied this conflict at length in professional and graduate environments.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:51 pm

Ladajo,

I thought in 1991, and I still think now that taking out Saddam and his government was the right thing to do. I only wish we had done it sooner,...

You write the US should have invaded earlier, like 1991.
How about the far worse dictators like Stalin or Mao? Should we have tried to topple them?

Or, take your pick from this list of http://www.therichest.org/world/worst-d ... the-world/
Should we go after them all too?
Or is it just countries near to Israel that matter?

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:53 pm

Guardian News Agency:

Iran's nuclear scientists are not being assassinated. They are being Murder.........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... red-murder

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:58 pm

Asian,
I appreciate the news but we don't need large bolded fonts, like a tabloid.

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:26 pm

parallel

It is accepted.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:34 pm

No really, they're being assassinated.

Aslan, if you can agree with the notion of a just war, or a just killing, then you must understand, the world generally considers the killing of these nuclear scientists in Iran, just killings. Iran is pushing constantly toward becoming a nuclear power while its leadership still holds that they are "just" in exterminating the Jewish people. This is why Iran is treated by the world as more than a bit nuts, and people don't much mind whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

So really, the entire notion of what is an assassination is predicated around the notion of just killing, and the dope at the Guardian apparently refuses to recognize such a thing is possible.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:35 pm

parallel wrote:Ladajo,
I thought in 1991, and I still think now that taking out Saddam and his government was the right thing to do. I only wish we had done it sooner,...
You write the US should have invaded earlier, like 1991.
How about the far worse dictators like Stalin or Mao? Should we have tried to topple them?

Or, take your pick from this list of http://www.therichest.org/world/worst-d ... the-world/
Should we go after them all too?
Or is it just countries near to Israel that matter?

I do not know why you keep bringing up Israel. It would almost seem you have something against them. My position has no relevance to Israel. I find most of the time that parodies of Israel has become a Meat Puppet for whomever it serves.
As far as bad governments and "dictators" go. Yes, I do think that if they are not willing to participate in a global system that recognizes the basic universal rights, then they should be "moved on". be that kinetic or non-knietic, it needs to happen in end result. If it is not done, we will see a perpetuation of political exchanges that run the clock long while millions more die in the name of diplomacy. I venture that diplomacy has killed more people and ruined more lives than war ever has. If you know that they do bad things, if you know that they will do more bads things, if you know that they are going to do bad things, then there is an obligation with respect to universal rights to try to stop them.

What would you do if you heard or saw your neighbour beating the crap out of his family. Would you physically intervene if you thought you could pull it off, and that waiting for the police would incur unacceptable risk to the family? Or you you play the diplomat and either ignore it as none-of your-business, or tell your other neighbours he is a bad man, but he cuts your lawn, so you need to stay out of it. Or, would you go over and diplomatically ask him to stop as you think it is wrong. Maybe even tell him that you have called the police. All the while watching him beat a 5 year old with a bat.
"Stop, or I will ask you to stop again!"

Yes, I support taking out a-holes that do not respect the lives of others. And yes, I would feel bad for the collateral incurred in the process. But to not act is to risk higher loss over time than just the collateral which I can hope to manage, instead of leaving said A-hole to do things on his terms and agenda. A paradox to be sure. But one that can have huge import in regards to loss now, verses loss later. I think that there are for instance many Cambodian Ghosts that would have loved external intervention to remove the Khmer Rouge. And I would also guess that a B-29 nuclear strike during the 1946 May-Day Parade in Moscow would have brought about an entirely different string of events for the next 50 years that probably would have seen less total people die around the planet in purges, proxy wars and influence battles. History certainly teaches us well that little monsters are less destructive over their life cycles as well as easier to vanquish than monsters that have been let or even inadvertantly encouraged to flourish and grow big.
When do you pull a weed? When it is small, or once it dominates the garden and kills off all your tomatoe plants?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:38 pm

parallel wrote:Given your history, it is fair to say that you believe in preemptive strikes and are not a believer in the UN definition of war crimes. You sound like you are a member of the Likud party.

The US government knew, or should have known, that Iraq did not have WMD nor were working on WMD at the time it invaded Iraq. Therefore it was a war crime to invade a country that had not attacked us and was no threat to us.

Why not to admit that presence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is only the well clear occasion for war even for primitively conceiving ordinary voter living e.g. in Philthydelphia? That is not written in Wiki? Please inform me who (which country) owns WMD at this moment? Why not to fight with all of them: USA, Russia, China, UK, France, etc., etc., etc.? If only existence of WMD may become occasion for war and nothing else. And no WMD, invasion is war crime.
Was Pr. Truman criminal?
Were first American colonists criminals?
Etc.

And at last please inform me when USA became superstate? Not after two world wars? And what was in 30s before WW2? Not economic depression?
And at once after WW2? Who had enough money for Marshall Plan?

I am asking you all these questions only for explanation that war is the part of history of any country, needed at certain stage of development.
And war always is dirty. And who begins the war always is criminal.

So, relax and enjoy.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:39 pm

Aslan wrote:parallel

It is accepted.

Aslan,
Thanks for dropping the bold.

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:47 pm

ladajo wrote: Aslan,
Thanks for dropping the bold.

Your Welcome!!

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:53 pm

GIThruster wrote:No really, they're being assassinated.

Aslan, if you can agree with the notion of a just war, or a just killing, then you must understand, the world generally considers the killing of these nuclear scientists in Iran, just killings. Iran is pushing constantly toward becoming a nuclear power while its leadership still holds that they are "just" in exterminating the Jewish people. This is why Iran is treated by the world as more than a bit nuts, and people don't much mind whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

So really, the entire notion of what is an assassination is predicated around the notion of just killing, and the dope at the Guardian apparently refuses to recognize such a thing is possible.

I would offer that it is not certain that the "CIA" did it. I would also offer that odds are it was somebody else given the plethora of parties that would like to act against Iran.

In this case, I note that I also agree that gloating about it is wrong. Killing is not a good thing no matter who or why. It is the most serious of things to take another's life. In this particular case, this man was killed by folks that decided he was an active part of the Iranian Government's nuclear program, and probably also the perceived Iranian Weapon's program. Whether they were right or wrong to kill him in this regard is certainly a point for debate. However, I think that the ulitmately culpable for his death besides the person that actually did it, is also the Iranian Government for putting him in the position that placed him at risk.

I also agree that he was not murdered in context. He was assassinated. Others will argue that he was a casualty in a conflict. I am also sure that his son will either grow up to hate the Iranian Government for being liars and having a Weapon's program and promoting conflict with the "West". Or, he will grow up with a hate for the "West", who "martyred" his father, which may be even more ironic given the good chance that Arabs did it.

I am also sure that the Japanese or German's would've been very happy to take out a few of the Los Alamos brain trust back in teh day given the chance. But of course, that was a war. You know, like some folks view dealing with Iran as a war.

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:58 pm

GIThruster wrote:No really, they're being assassinated.

Aslan, if you can agree with the notion of a just war, or a just killing, then you must understand, the world generally considers the killing of these nuclear scientists in Iran, just killings. Iran is pushing constantly toward becoming a nuclear power while its leadership still holds that they are "just" in exterminating the Jewish people. This is why Iran is treated by the world as more than a bit nuts, and people don't much mind whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

So really, the entire notion of what is an assassination is predicated around the notion of just killing, and the dope at the Guardian apparently refuses to recognize such a thing is possible.

GIThruster, I frequently said in my previous thread that IRAN has not Nuclear Weapons. Unfortunately, Iranian effort to achieve nuclear weapons is a dummy and big lie that is planning by Zions.