Israel: America is asleep at the wheel on Iran.

[Gan]

Yitzhak Cohen says during cabinet meeting 'US intelligence report was ordered by someone who wants dialogue with Tehran. Minister Eli Yishai: 'We must not play dumb in the face of the report's findings' Roni Sofer Published: 12.09.07, 14:30 / Israel News (http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3082,00.html)


The manner in which the Americans relate to the intelligence report on Iran is similar to the way in which they viewed those reports they received during the Holocaust on railways transporting hundreds of thousands of Jews to their death at Auschwitz," Minister Yitzhak Cohen of Shas said during a security cabinet meeting Sunday morning on the Iranian nuclear issue.


"It can not be that (US President George W.) Bush is committed to peace as was declared at Annapolis, and then the Americans propagate such an intelligence report which contradicts the information we have proving Iran intends to obtain nuclear weapons," Cohen said. "How can we rely on the Americans if they publish this report that emasculates what the world explicitly knows regarding Iran, and renders impotent the entire struggle against the Iranians?"

Minister Cohen asserted that the report must have been "ordered by someone who wants dialogue with Tehran" and formulated an historical analogy to express just how serious the situation is: "In the middle of the previous century the Americans received intelligence reports from Auschwitz on the packed trains going to the extermination camps. They claimed then that the railways were industrial. Their attitude today to the information coming out of Iran on the Iranians' intention to produce a nuclear bomb reminds one of their attitude during the holocaust."

Cabinet Member Cohen had this to say to his fellow ministers not present in the meeting: "Whoever thinks that the president of Iran is a lover of Zion, with Kosher certification from the Americans, misleads and is mislead. He is not a lover of Zion, but instead an aspiring strangler of Zion. Someone in America fell asleep on his watch, but we must remain awake and aware."

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3480595,00.html
__________________________________________________ ___

Alarmist rhetoric?

Or do they know something that we dont know?

Discuss.

[Sean of the Thread]

As I stated earlier it's all part of the plan. US washes it's hands and Israel does the deed (again).

Brilliant!

[Keller]

They know that their future depends on US hegemony in the middle east.

Gotta love man-made Zion and those who want to protect it.

[Anebriated]

I blame the Republicans.

[Sean of the Thread]

I blame Khaladon

[Some Rogue]

I blame Khaladon

You're supposed to blame Psinet you tool.

[radamanthys]

They are correct... Iran would love nothing better than to wipe Israel from the map. Israel is attempting to use our power to fight their fight, essentially.

I see how it's important from a moral standpoint... but we're not exactly in the best shape here. We need to, instead, start doing things that are directly beneficial, to rescue us from this nightmare of an economy we have these days.

[Sean of the Thread]

They'll take care of it on their own just like they did the last reactor.

Boys will be boys.

[Parkbandit]

You are a bunch of neocon, warmongering racists.

[Gan]

You are a bunch of neocon, warmongering racists.
http://www.maverickmagazine.com/14maverickmagazine14/Copy%20of%20mushroom_cloud.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

That translation is awful. "aspiring strangler of Zion"?

Also, LOLOLOL COHEN GODWINND FTL KBAI

[Keller]

You are a bunch of neocon, warmongering racists.


I understand you're trying to show sarcasm, but it is reassuring that the right's unquestioning support of the invasion of Iraq has led people like you to actually think for yourself and not sanction another invasion. I have no doubt that if this regime had the available troops and the available "political capital", Iran would have no nuclear program.

[Sean of the Thread]

Because only the right supported the invasion.

Duh.

[Parkbandit]

I understand you're trying to show sarcasm, but it is reassuring that the right's unquestioning support of the invasion of Iraq has led people like you to actually think for yourself and not sanction another invasion. I have no doubt that if this regime had the available troops and the available "political capital", Iran would have no nuclear program.

You clearly are too stupid to understand my sarcasm. Our military action against Iraq didn't suddenly make me start thinking for myself.. I always have.

You're a dipshit. << Notice no italics around this.. so you don't misunderstand me.

[Keller]

Because only the right supported the invasion.

Duh.

Do we need to review threads from that period?

[Latrinsorm]

It's not an administration, it's a regime?

[Keller]

You clearly are too stupid to understand my sarcasm. Our military action against Iraq didn't suddenly make me start thinking for myself.. I always have.

You're a dipshit. << Notice no italics around this.. so you don't misunderstand me.

Then please, explain what your sarcasm was intended to communicate.

[Keller]

It's not an administration, it's a regime?

Yes. It's the 8-yr period where we tried the Neo-conservative regime of government.

[Sean of the Thread]

Do we need to review threads from that period?

I wasn't speaking about the board. I was talking in general across the population.

[Keller]

I wasn't speaking about the board. I was talking in general across the population.

Before we proceed, are you talking about the population or the politicians?

[Parkbandit]

Do we need to review threads from that period?

Yes, I think we should. Are you suggesting that the only people who were in favor of the military action were now Republicans? You might also want to do some google work and check out the polling data from that time period as well.

We're not all Clintons... we weren't all against it from the beginning like they claim they were...

[Keller]

Yes, I think we should. Are you suggesting that the only people who were in favor of the military action were now Republicans? You might also want to do some google work and check out the polling data from that time period as well.

We're not all Clintons... we weren't all against it from the beginning like they claim they were...

Like this one? (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/iraq.poll/)

[Keller]

Then please, explain what your sarcasm was intended to communicate.

Since I am too dumb to figure it out for myself, I'm still waiting for your explanation.

[Alfster]

Whatever you do, don't call PB a whore!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I can't say I'd have been against going into Iran. I would have preferred it to Iraq, and I think we'd have been more successful.

Any sort of "intelligence" reports coming from this Administration I'm always going to be weary of. Are we as sure that Iran doesn't have the capability or isn't already developing their technology the same amount we were just SO sure that Iraq had nuclear/chemical weapons?

As for right now, I really think we have our hands tied up with Iraq and Afghanistan-- I don't want another war, and even if I could be convinced it was the right thing to do, I'd rather have another administration be the ones overseeing it given the track record of the current one turning military action into a total clusterfuck.

[Gan]

As for right now, I really think we have our hands tied up with Iraq and Afghanistan-- I don't want another war, and even if I could be convinced it was the right thing to do, I'd rather have another administration be the ones overseeing it given the track record of the current one turning military action into a total clusterfuck.

Anytime you inject politics into a military campaign you turn it into a clusterfuck.

Anytime you change the objectives from military to political, you turn it into a clusterfuck.

These scenarios are not just limited to the current administration, or any specific administration, in any specific war.

[Methais]

Iran doesn't care about black people.

[Gan]

Iran doesn't care about black people.

Or gay people.

[Parkbandit]

Since I am too dumb to figure it out for myself, I'm still waiting for your explanation.

You are serious? If you need someone to explain a post, you should probably either skip it, or ignore it. It wasn't posted to stir some intellectual thought on your part.. it was posted to make fun of people like you.

Clearly, it worked better than intended.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Anytime you inject politics into a military campaign you turn it into a clusterfuck.

Anytime you change the objectives from military to political, you turn it into a clusterfuck.

These scenarios are not just limited to the current administration, or any specific administration, in any specific war.

Of course they're not limited by just this administration-- and it's not really limited to "Is this a republican or democrat Administration?" either. However it's not just mere chance that one administration bungles up two military campaigns while others have either waged successful ones or else corrected the mistake quickly when it became apparent that success wasn't going to happen.

But this Administration has proven its incompetence and I'd rather not sit by and watch them fuck up something else.

[TheEschaton]

Anytime you change the objectives from military to political, you turn it into a clusterfuck.

I don't know, I think we did pretty well in Bosnia. Not that Clinton didn't fuck up Rwanda or anything.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Our first priority should be protecting Israel in preparation for the End of Days of course.

[Gan]

Our first priority should be protecting Israel in preparation for the End of Days of course.

According to the scriptures, thats already protected...

[Daniel]

Anytime you inject politics into a military campaign you turn it into a clusterfuck.

Anytime you change the objectives from military to political, you turn it into a clusterfuck.

These scenarios are not just limited to the current administration, or any specific administration, in any specific war.

Do you mean to imply that Iraq was messed up because it was turned political?

[Gan]

Do you mean to imply that Iraq was messed up because it was turned political?

Do you always ask for clarification on posts that require no clarification?

[Warriorbird]

It's sort of like you not believing in racism unless black people are doing it. It's a rhetorical device.

;)

Sort of like ad hominem attacks.

[Gan]

It's sort of like you not believing in racism unless black people are doing it. It's a rhetorical device.

;)

Sort of like ad hominem attacks.

Sort of like throwing up bullshit and agreeing with whatever sticks to the wall. ;)

And obviously if you think I dont believe in racism unless a black person is doing it then you need to 1. advance your reading comprehension skills and 2. understand how I post before you make assumptions that clearly make you look like an idiot.*

Oh wait, seems you've already beat us to the idiot part.

[Keller]

You are serious? If you need someone to explain a post, you should probably either skip it, or ignore it. It wasn't posted to stir some intellectual thought on your part.. it was posted to make fun of people like you.

Clearly, it worked better than intended.

I will take this as your concession that you can't even bullshit a meaning for your post other than the meaning I inferred and that this is your means of apologizing for flying off the handle, accusing me of misunderstanding you, and therefore calling me an idiot.

Apology accepted.

[Parkbandit]

I will take this as your concession that you can't even bullshit a meaning for your post other than the meaning I inferred and that this is your means of apologizing for flying off the handle, accusing me of misunderstanding you, and therefore calling me an idiot.

Apology accepted.


If you just want to interpret posts the way you want.. maybe you should go to a 1 player forum mode. I bet you would still lose.

[Keller]

If you just want to interpret posts the way you want.. maybe you should go to a 1 player forum mode. I bet you would still lose.

You've evaded the question for 3 posts. You leave me no choice.

[Warriorbird]

The forum would be too relaxing with some people on ignore.

[Stanley Burrell]

Ahmajinadad is a crazy fuck. If he was a normal fuck, he'd probably realize that the hypothetical attack of almost any of Israel with a nuclear weapon is attacking its neighbors as well. I'm going to guess the nuke-u-lar attack part has crossed his mind, what with the Holocaust never happening, etc.

There used to be a lot of normal fucks, but now they're all crazy. Israel has/does/will exist in the exact same fashion as the United States, whereas if that possibility of existence were ever truly threatened, a good part, if not the entire circumference of the globe would be molten.

I don't understand this "strangler of Zion" bullshit either. Sounds like Messianic gah-bage. Also something that needs to quelled in Israel's oligarchy, at least.

Anyway, I truly agree with the basic material of the report on Iran's nuclear program, but again, I feel as though if G. W. Bush grew some facial hair and transported himself as the ruler of a third world country, you'd have something similar to Ahmajinadad.

These powermongering idiots need to STFU, seriously. Since they won't, and politics will be what it is, you're going to have the event of destroying their reactor as an incomparibly more probable event than, say, even investing in covert operations to assassinate dictators (not to sound all Pat Robertson.) God forbid open-mindedness to actions beyond political meetings.

[Tsa`ah]

I think the lesson here is that our "intelligence" and the people who review it is pretty damned questionable.

The peace process should always be our first effort. After a good deal of bungling, I think the administration is finally attempting something in the proper order.

Since Bush Sr attempted to cut aid to Israel due to their policies in place for the Palestinian people and land, I think Bush Jr should also take up that torch while he's at the table with Iran.

This could be an opportunity to broker a multifaceted peace deal that includes Israel, Iran, and Palestine ... and anyone else that wants to belly up to the table.

[landy]

Peace in the middle east is such a fucking pipe dream, it may as well be a flying car. Sure, it SHOULD be possible, but it just never fucking happens.

[Parkbandit]

The forum would be too relaxing with some people on ignore.

If I want to relax.. I can think of plenty of other things to do than read the PC.

I don't put people like you on ignore because you entertain me.. and make me feel better about myself.

[Warriorbird]

Pretty much the same is true over here.

[Gan]

If I want to relax.. I can think of plenty of other things to do than read the PC.

I don't put people like you on ignore because you entertain me.. and make me feel better about myself.

x2

[Daniel]

Do you always ask for clarification on posts that require no clarification?

I'm just making sure I understand you right before I point out how stupid you are.

[Gan]

I'm just making sure I understand you right before I point out how stupid you are.

Considering how many times you've tried before, and failed... at least you dont give up easily...

[Celephais]

I love the open sharing of ideas and discussion on this board...

This thread degraded pretty effectively. I do believe that the intelligence reports are omissive at best, and doctored at worst in an attempt to get America out of the knee-deep bloodshed of foreign policing. A little time for some introversion and building up would be nice, but I don't think the affairs of the world would unfold very nicely (not like they're unfolding well with our help).

I really hope that Israel just decides to take care of the issue, once and forall.

[Tsa`ah]

I really hope that Israel just decides to take care of the issue, once and forall.

This won't happen because the adage of "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" holds true for everyone in the middle east ... except Israel.

They could take out Iran, or at least their nuclear capability ... but the resulting backlash from neighboring States would be disastrous.

[Celephais]

I meant in a more covert sense, but something tells me that Israel doesn't really consider their local "allies" opinions when they do things.

[Daniel]

Considering how many times you've tried before, and failed... at least you dont give up easily...

So the answer to the question is....

[Gan]

So the answer to the question is....

Again, I should not have to reiterate to you what has already been stated. Reading comprehension FTW.

[Daniel]

So basicaly, you believe that operation Iraqi "freedom" was a military only operation and it got messed up with it turned political.

Gotcha.

Unfortunately, that runs counter to what most people in the military at the highest levels who were involved would say. In fact, they'll tell you that the biggest failure was the inability of the administration to recognize that it was not a military operation.

[Parkbandit]

This won't happen because the adage of "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" holds true for everyone in the middle east ... except Israel.

They could take out Iran, or at least their nuclear capability ... but the resulting backlash from neighboring States would be disastrous.

You mean like it was for Israel in '81 when they destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility? I think you underestimate Israel.. and overestimate the 'neighboring States".

[Sean of the Thread]

You mean like it was for Israel in '81 when they destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility? I think you underestimate Israel.. and overestimate the 'neighboring States".

I've been saying all along that I believe they'll handle this just like the last time with minimal backlash.

[Parkbandit]

I've been saying all along that I believe they'll handle this just like the last time with minimal backlash.


God.. don't say that word!


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/pundit.jpg

[Gan]

So basicaly, you believe that operation Iraqi "freedom" was a military only operation and it got messed up with it turned political.
Did I say that?



Unfortunately, that runs counter to what most people in the military at the highest levels who were involved would say. In fact, they'll tell you that the biggest failure was the inability of the administration to recognize that it was not a military operation.
Source please. And if you say it was because you were in the military I'm going to laugh. (even more)

[Warriorbird]

Because when confronted with anything difficult you and Parkbandit immediately say, "Source please." I'm not going to request an examination of the credibility of Israeli politicians evaluating American intelligence about Iran.

But why precisely does the report on Iran bother you, Gan?

Did you want America to go to war with Iran?

[Daniel]

Did I say that?


Source please. And if you say it was because you were in the military I'm going to laugh. (even more)



Department of Defense Directive 3000.05, Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations, was issued on November 28, 2005, and demonstrated a landmark shift in thinking, placing stability operations the same level as combat operations. The war in Iraq both prompted and was the first major test of this new thinking.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/300005.htm

[Gan]

Because when confronted with anything difficult you and Parkbandit immediately say, "Source please." I'm not going to request an examination of the credibility of Israeli politicians evaluating American intelligence about Iran.
We cite source please as a polite way of saying what you just spewed reeks of bullshit. Just consider it an * if you will and ignore it when you cant back up what you say, you know, business as normal. ;)



But why precisely does the report on Iran bother you, Gan?
I dont believe I ever said it bothered me. I actually started this thread (I know, its a foreign concept to you) as a means of initiating a discussion on the pressure Israel puts on the US in terms of middle east policy. Something you should have understood with the first few posts if you had actually been paying attention.


Did you want America to go to war with Iran?
Did I? No, now is not the time to be instigating a conflict with Iran.

Do I? I dont think war is always a solution. Especially now when the end result doesnt mean conquest and taking over of the defeated state. As the last few examples have proven, occupying a defeated state while trying to salvage the infrastructure that remains isnt always successful. Especially when you interject partisan politics in the goals and ROE of the military.

Will we go to war with Iran? Who knows what the future holds.

[Warriorbird]

"Especially when you interject partisan politics in the goals and ROE of the military."

You mean like the entire second Iraq War?

;)

I think Pakistan is a better military destination than Iran.

[Gan]

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/300005.htm

Interesting document, but it pretty much describes how what has historically been civillian functions are now being adapted to military function for this engagement.

Nowhere does it back up what I asked you to source. Here's your quote:



Unfortunately, that runs counter to what most people in the military at the highest levels who were involved would say. In fact, they'll tell you that the biggest failure was the inability of the administration to recognize that it was not a military operation.

[Daniel]

Interesting document, but it pretty much describes how what has historically been civillian functions are now being adapted to military function for this engagement.


because....

Come on. Finish the thought. I know you can.

[Parkbandit]

Because when confronted with anything difficult you and Parkbandit immediately say, "Source please." I'm not going to request an examination of the credibility of Israeli politicians evaluating American intelligence about Iran.

But why precisely does the report on Iran bother you, Gan?

Did you want America to go to war with Iran?

Actually.. my use of the "source please" was a sarcastic slam on ES... but you are right in the context of her usage of it.