In 1938 Chamberlin allowed Germany to absorb Czechoslovakia.
In doing that he was following the dictates of appeasment.
It was a mistake, and it took 6 years of war to end the problem.
Like it or not, Iran is seen as the SAME as Nazi Germany.
Thats a really bad analogy.
There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and Iran.
There is no comparison between Germany attacking and seizng another country, and Iran. Iran hasn't attacked and seized another nation. And it hasn't embarked on a continental war for domination...
Because 'nice' countries do NOT seize hostages.
So, the US and all the European nations who were complicit in the renidition program, which is in actuality, seizing hostages, torturing them, and imprisoning them without charges nor trial are not nice.
What about the US seizing the 5 Iranian low-level diplomats from the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, Iraq. They are technically hostages and pawns in a game...
So allowing Iran to have Nuclear Weapons is seen as the same
as Chamberlin allowing Germany to absorb Czechoslovakia.
The huge mistake in this claim is that every attempt at proving that Iran has embarked on a nuclear weapons program has failed.
The only thing Iran is doing is embarking on a peaceful civilian nuclear program.
All this nonsense about them enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb is pure propaganda, and is to be used as a pretext for a war for ntervention. Because what they are doing is absolutely legal under the IAEA & UN rules. Iran is a signatory of the NPT, that gives it the right to enrich uranium.
Israel on other hand started its militaristic nuclear program in the late 50's, and doesn't allow IAEA transparent inspections.
India didn't sign the NPT, and the US rewards it by signing a new nuclear cooperation program. That's a great example of our hypocrisy.
That and the reckless statements of the Iranian President.
Hmmm. Compare them to the reckless statements issued by Bush and Israeli officials...
So in my opinion, there is very little hope that Iran will get what it wants
w/o a fight. Almost no hope at all.
It's been getting everything peacefully, so far...
We dont buy oil from Iran, their threats do not scare us.
Other nations do, and the US takes their views seriously and courts their approval of our actions.
All the major powers have refused to sign off on a US strike. The purchasers of Iranian oil, also have refused to sanction a US strike.
Also, if the US controlls Iraq's oil, and then aquires the control of Iranian oil, that would give it huge leverage over the world, and can then dictate to the nations who do buy Iranian oil. That's another reason for their refusal in allowing a us strike.
So it is like watching a train wreck, that you have no power to stop.
Because Iran foolishly feels that the USA is too cowardly to act.
They are wrong. They will find that out, the hard way.
The US and Israel don't dare to attack Iran. Iran is a powerful nation. We can inflict much damage, but, we'll get hit hard in a retaliatory attack.
Iran is not Iraq.
If we wanted to or could have attacked Iran, we would have done it a long time ago.
The longer we put it off, the more stronger Iran gets and the less likely we do attack...
U.S. troops detain four insurgents smuggling Iranian weapons in Baghdad :
The detainees are believed to be members of a "secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," a military statement said.
U.S. troops detain four insurgents smuggling Iranian weapons in Baghdad :
The detainees are believed to be members of a "secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," a military statement said.
That's what I don't get about the corporate media's propaganda. In this instance, they're being highly generalistic and vague.
Are all Muslim groups in Iraq, being placed under the umbrella term of insurgents.
Because, I highly doubt that the Iranians are helping the national Sunni Insurgency.
Do they mean by insurgents, the Shia militia's?
Or by stating "terrorist network," that brings to mind, Al Qaeda. But, the Iranians loathe Al Qaeda, and have imprisoned many members fleeing Afghanistan after the initial U.S. Assault.
CIA running black propaganda operation against Iran, Syria and Lebanon, officials say Larisa Alexandrovna
Monday June 4, 2007
Some intelligence sources more wary of covert Pentagon operations
The Central Intelligence Agency has received approval at least twice in the last several years to conduct an “information war” against several countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon and Syria, according to current and former intelligence officials.
In addition, the Bush Administration has been running operations out of the Defense Department that are not subject to Congressional oversight, intelligence sources say. These programs appear murkier, and have included support for an alleged terrorist group in Iran.
A recent ABC News report revealed that President George W. Bush had signed a presidential finding giving the CIA the authority to conduct “non-lethal” covert operations against Iran. Former and current intelligence sources tell RAW STORY, however, that there have been “at least two” presidential findings over the past few years which have empowered the agency to run an “open-secret” information war against Iranian interests, mainly leveraging resources and assets “within the United States and France.”
Although the resources – people, groups, organizations – were not identified, sources say that they are not terrorist organizations or groups using violent tactics to achieve their goals. “It's a propaganda operation,” said a former intelligence case officer who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the information. “It is not new or aggressive,” the source added, explaining that the operation has been going on for some time and has Congressional funding and oversight.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano would not comment about the allegations made in the ABC report or discuss the existence of the presidential findings identified to RAW STORY.
“The CIA does not, as a matter of course, publicly discuss allegations of covert action, whether the assertions are wrong, right, or somewhere in-between,” Gimigliano said. “That's one reason why the term ‘covert action’ still exists.”
“But it's important to remember that, through the Congress, there is vigorous oversight of secret intelligence activities,” he added.
According to current and former intelligence officials, the various presidential findings are not limited to Iran. Several countries within the Middle East – including Syria and Lebanon – as well as groups such as Hezbollah, are being targeted through what sources call “black propaganda” efforts.
Iran is being targeted by the CIA's activities with a “pro-democracy” message, sources say, and the agency is supporting overt “pro-democracy” groups.
The program’s particulars are highly classified. Intelligence sources stress, however, that the groups being used are rather mainstream and the operations are almost entirely restricted to information warfare.
Sources would not identify what mechanism was being employed to distribute the propaganda, if it included news media, individuals or organizations, or whether that information was seeping back into domestic news reports.
One former intelligence case officer did explain that the CIA's program is operating largely outside of the Middle East and is aimed at identifying potential allies, as well as using already existing well known groups through whom information can be delivered. The type of “information” and the “groups” and “organizations” involved were not identified.
ABC News may have reported the presidential finding as “new” because of the recently passed massive intelligence budget. Under the bill, roughly $50 million was appropriated for the “Democracy Fund” and the “Broadcasting Board of Governors,” both earmarked for Iran operations.
Sources close to the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence would not discuss any aspect of the CIA program or comment on anything relating to the presidential findings.
“This is an area I simply cannot get into,” said one source.
Pentagon operation supporting terrorist group kept from Congress
RAW STORY has also learned that the Pentagon is continuing to conduct more aggressive “black” operations, approved by the National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President.
Current and former intelligence officials would not identify new specific covert programs running out of the Pentagon, though sources stressed these are far riskier and more truly covert operational activities against Iran than the activities of the CIA.
These operations started almost immediately after the Iraq war and have continued for several years. Because they can be considered part of a military operation, they are not subjects to the same requirements for Congressional authorization as the activities of the CIA.
The majority of these efforts to destabilize Iran through a covert war of aggression have been carried out by the Department of Defense, largely steered by the Office of the Vice President and by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
A series of RAW STORY reports has identified some of the “off book” or black operations running out of the Pentagon over the last several years. In 2003, the Defense Department began working with terrorist and dissident groups in an effort to destabilize Iran, bypassing traditional intelligence channels. One of the assets the Pentagon used was a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which was being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran, including a Shia region where a series of attacks in 2006 left many dead and hundreds injured.
These activities have often been guided by the same individuals whose actions during Iran-Contra were the reason for a 1991 law on covert activities which for the first time clearly defined covert activities and how their oversight should be handled.
During Iran-Contra, the Reagan White House – via the National Security Council – sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy of the United States, and used the money to fund various terrorist and dissident groups, collectively called the Contras, to fight a proxy war against the government of Nicaragua.
Sources say that MEK has been used for intelligence collection, an activity which has traditionally fallen under the CIA. The administration also appears to be looking the other way as groups such as MEK commit acts of violence.
Intelligence sources interviewed for this article all expressed concern over the lack of attention to the Pentagon’s covert activities. Some believe illegal activities like those of the Iran-Contra days are now being hidden under the loophole of “traditional military activities” to avoid Congressional oversight.
Steven Aftergood, director for the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, says this loophole exists in Congressional oversight with regards to military covert activities.
“CIA covert actions have to be authorized by a written presidential finding, which must be provided to Congress,” Aftergood said. “By contrast, DOD operations, including clandestine or covert operations, are not subject to this procedure.
“As a result,” he added, “there may be a temptation to opt for a purely military action to take advantage of the loophole in congressional notification requirements.”
Covert economic warfare may not be limited to CIA
Another former intelligence official said that the CIA has been cleared to target Iran's economic interests, but that the approval is limited to non-aggressive activities. The CIA “has been empowered to put economic pressure on Iran,” the former intelligence officer stated, but would not elaborate on what the meaning of “pressure” is.
Yet some suggest that the economic element of the covert program is either far more aggressive or is being attributed to the CIA when in fact another agency may be running it.
Foreign intelligence sources say that economic pressure is aimed at Iran's oil-rich economy, with US efforts serving to “persuade” financial institutions, oil companies, and international investment interests to pull out of Iran and even drop already existing energy projects.
These sources cite the example of an unnamed company that is being denied financing for energy projects inside Iran by international banks, indicating that many more such examples exist.
Other possible forms of pressure would include less subtle activities, such as intercepting supply convoys and confiscating equipment. Foreign sources are not sure if this covert activity is in fact part of the CIA program.
The Department of Defense did not respond to comment on this story.
Muriel Kane contributed to the research for this article.
Larisa Alexandrovna is the Managing Editor of Investigative News for Raw Story and regularly covers intelligence and national security. She can be reached at [email protected]. #
Related Raw Story articles on US planning and operations concerning Iran:
If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
Paul Craig Roberts
The war in Iraq is lost.
This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option.
Following revelations of a George W. Bush administration policy to hold Iran responsible for any al Qaeda attack on the U.S. that could be portrayed as planned on Iranian soil, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi warned last week that Washington might use such an incident as a pretext to bomb Iran.
A senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government suggested Wednesday that his country is running out of patience with a U.S.-backed diplomatic overture to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran caught 'red-handed' shipping arms to Taliban:
"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant.
War pimp alert: 'Military plan against Iran is ready':
Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.
There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and Iran.
There is no comparison between Germany attacking and seizng another country, and Iran. Iran hasn't attacked and seized another nation. And it hasn't embarked on a continental war for domination...
So, the US and all the European nations who were complicit in the renidition program, which is in actuality, seizing hostages, torturing them, and imprisoning them without charges nor trial are not nice.
What about the US seizing the 5 Iranian low-level diplomats from the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, Iraq. They are technically hostages and pawns in a game...
The huge mistake in this claim is that every attempt at proving that Iran has embarked on a nuclear weapons program has failed.
The only thing Iran is doing is embarking on a peaceful civilian nuclear program.
All this nonsense about them enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb is pure propaganda, and is to be used as a pretext for a war for ntervention. Because what they are doing is absolutely legal under the IAEA & UN rules. Iran is a signatory of the NPT, that gives it the right to enrich uranium.
Israel on other hand started its militaristic nuclear program in the late 50's, and doesn't allow IAEA transparent inspections.
India didn't sign the NPT, and the US rewards it by signing a new nuclear cooperation program. That's a great example of our hypocrisy.
Hmmm. Compare them to the reckless statements issued by Bush and Israeli officials...
It's been getting everything peacefully, so far...
Other nations do, and the US takes their views seriously and courts their approval of our actions.
All the major powers have refused to sign off on a US strike. The purchasers of Iranian oil, also have refused to sanction a US strike.
Also, if the US controlls Iraq's oil, and then aquires the control of Iranian oil, that would give it huge leverage over the world, and can then dictate to the nations who do buy Iranian oil. That's another reason for their refusal in allowing a us strike.
The US and Israel don't dare to attack Iran. Iran is a powerful nation. We can inflict much damage, but, we'll get hit hard in a retaliatory attack.
Iran is not Iraq.
If we wanted to or could have attacked Iran, we would have done it a long time ago.
The longer we put it off, the more stronger Iran gets and the less likely we do attack...
I dont agree. Iran is eager for status. It wants recognition.
And quite frankly, I personally think that the people running Iran, dont really
care how many people may die, as long as their goals are met.
Right now the only reason Iran isnt being attacked is Rice.
She is talking Bush out of it. But Cheney wants a military solution.
Nice countries dont take hostages. Your sophistry is ignored.
Yes it is possible that nothing will happen. IT IS POSSIBLE.
But it is also possible that something WILL happen.
...The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. ...
Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small- scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).
... Thus the US footing in the Arab camp has been eroding. If that continues, the cost in increased US military power to maintain Israel's ultimate security will soon be beyond US means.
A rapprochement with Iran, therefore, is the key to restoring regional stability as the US withdraws from Iraq. Tehran has as much interest in stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan as does Washington. Both oppose Al Qaeda ...
Effectively the US has demolished the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran might settle for a security guarantee against an Israeli nuclear strike ...
Christ will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God .....holy Quran, chapter Women , 4: 172
Left without a pretext for a military assault on Iran, the Bush administration finds itself in a position where it needs to prepare the world opinion for mass genocide with a compelling reason.
With its control over the media, it is accomplishing this by denouncing Iran as the killer of American troops while causing civil unrest in Iraq.
End border raids or bombs away: Can you believe that Joe Lieberman?
Iran has gone to war with us, sending troops across its border with Iraq to kill perhaps as many as 200 of our soldiers, and Lieberman wants to stop them
I have a different question. What if the USA does NOT attack Iran.
But Israel does. What will happen then?
Oddly, I suspect it wont matter to Iran, and they will attack the USA anyway.
Which will mean that they will allow Bush to do whatever he wants.
I have a different question. What if the USA does NOT attack Iran. But Israel does. What will happen then?
let me guess......Israel will say , we don't do body counts.....some websites will be created to count the numbers how many died in the war as if human being are numbers only.
We will have some brave embaded journalists who will beat the best private secretaries ever one can ask for....will report exactly what they hear from their bosses , we will post something bashing Israel & the life will go on as it's going for us now etc , etc.
Many of us will forget - everything is being recorded for the last day.
Oddly, I suspect it wont matter to Iran, and they will attack the USA anyway.
do u really believe , Iran has this power to attack USA & win the war ?
Which will mean that they will allow Bush to do whatever he wants.
I don't think , Bush is waiting for Iran's allowing him to start the war. May be , he is waiting for the most suitable time .
[
Christ will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God .....holy Quran, chapter Women , 4: 172
The sort of dialogue going on here seems so absurd that we even need to bother with it.
Is it true that George Bush nearly died choking on a Pretzel?
This morning Aussie network TV had a US senator speaking against the war.
Within the Realm of King Solomon
Who could have known I was home grown
An accuser's false allegation
Did warrant only my Nation in apology for inconveniences
its shaytan leeches
who accuse
my unconscious sleep
of accusing you too cheep
I will be selling for five times three
centsiblity
The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd...
I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors.
Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years.
Iran has from the beginning insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and there has been no evidence - I repeat, no evidence - to the contrary...
As for Iran's alleged threat to "wipe Israel off the map," that is propaganda based on a mistranslation.
Nobody in Iran has ever threatened to attack Israel militarily.
Our Leaders, the Enemy
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
In line with Adolf Hitler, the neo-cons are delivering bigger lies for a more violent conflict.
They are accusing Iran of a nuclear threat in spite of the IAEA inspections to the contrary, further destabilizing Iraq by arming and feeding the frenzy on all sides, and stoking the flames by such incendiary accusations as: Iran is now arming the Taliban.
Maybe because they help finance militant groups in neighbors countries.
US does that as well, forget neighbors, US does it across the world. It doesn't just finance, but uproot unfriendly regimes and anything and everything to make it beneficial to it.
Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years.
how many wars has US waged and lands US invaded within last 5yrs?
I think we know who the real terrorist regime is here.
US does that as well, forget neighbors, US does it across the world. It doesn't just finance, but uproot unfriendly regimes and anything and everything to make it beneficial to it.
Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years.
how many wars has US waged and lands US invaded within last 5yrs?
I think we know who the real terrorist regime is here.
What the US does or does not do was not part of your statement.
How many wars the US has waged was not part of your statement.
The statement was:
I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors.
I addressed your statement, yet you do not address mine. You just dump the standard garbage.
You say anything about what I respect and I will just say what you respect is worse. It is the standard "Your momma is uglier than my momma” argument.
Iran has been pushing for war from inspection. I fear some day they will get it.
Iran has been pushing for war from inspection. I fear some day they will get it.
Accept Reality: Iran and North Korea Will Not Be Denied Nuclear Weapons
by Ivan Eland
(Tuesday, June 19, 2007)
"...unless the United States is ready to launch unlikely ground invasions in both of these nations, in order to neutralize all their nuclear facilities, fissionable material, or weapons, which would make the invasion and occupation of Iraq look like a day at the beach, Iran and North Korea will probably get or retain nuclear weapons, respectively."
The Bush administration may live in a bubble of “unreality,” regarding its foreign policy in Iraq, but neo-conservatives inhabit a parallel universe on Iran. Unbelievably, despite the fact that the U.S. quagmire in Iraq has greatly weakened the U.S. position vis-à-vis Iran, the neocons are pushing for military action against that theocratic regime. According to the New York Times, David Wurmser, one of Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal advisors, told conservative groups of Cheney’s assertion that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic effort to shut down Iran’s nuclear program was faltering. Cheney further asserted that by the spring of 2008 President Bush might have to decide whether to use military force against that nation, according to the report.
Fortunately, however, the Times also reports that the friends and associates of Secretary Rice say she believes a military strike against Iran would be “disastrous” and is winning the internal administration debate so far. Even more encouraging is President Bush’s decision in late 2002 and early 2003, when he decided not to give North Korea an ultimatum or threaten to attack that nation over its ejection of international nuclear inspectors and plans to create more weapons-grade plutonium that could be made into nuclear bombs. North Korea followed through on its plans, is now believed to have enough fuel for eight or more weapons, and exploded a nuclear device in the fall of 2006. Yet during the time of Bush’s decision, North Korea already had enough fissile material to make some nuclear weapons, whereas Iran doesn’t. That is, the reality of going to war with a nuclear nation is much more sobering than going to war with a nation that is still three to eight years away from generating the fissionable material needed to make an atomic weapon.
Even if the United States launched air strikes against Iran, they would probably only delay the inevitable. Such strikes would be unlikely to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, because the United States doesn’t know where all of them are located; in addition, some have been deeply buried, and still others are in densely populated areas. Air strikes would likely rally the young Iranian population, thirsting for change, around the autocratic and theocratic fossils now running Iran’s government—eliminating all hope that regime change would terminate the Iranian nuclear program. Indeed, such U.S. belligerence, or even saber rattling, is one of the prime factors motivating Iran to obtain the weapons.
If one doubts this effect, in late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea redoubled its nuclear efforts, a move that coincided with the North Koreans’ conclusion about what was going to happen to a non-nuclear Iraq. As a result, North Korea’s more recent agreement to readmit international weapons inspectors and stop its nuclear program, in exchange for aid and the unfreezing of its assets, should be taken with a grain of salt. North Korea cheated on the last such agreement it made with the Clinton administration. More important, the agreement did not require the North Koreans to give up the fissionable material already generated.
Therefore, unless the United States is ready to launch unlikely ground invasions in both of these nations, in order to neutralize all their nuclear facilities, fissionable material, or weapons, which would make the invasion and occupation of Iraq look like a day at the beach, Iran and North Korea will probably get or retain nuclear weapons, respectively.
This reality should not preclude the United States from trying to negotiate a “grand bargain” with these nations: to get them to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a full normalization of relations, to integrate them into the world economy by the lifting of economic sanctions, and to guarantee that the United States will not attack them. However, in the wake of the U.S. invasion of non-nuclear Iraq and the existence of regional rivals—some with nuclear weapons or weapons potential—it is unlikely that either Iran or North Korea will negotiate away their nuclear programs.
Thus, the United States probably will have to deter an Iranian or North Korean nuclear attack, or the giving or selling of these nuclear weapons to terrorists, by using the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. Such deterrence was effectively carried out against bigger and more powerful states--Maoist China and the USSR--until they either moderated their behavior or disintegrated, respectively. In the case of Maoist China, the United States deterred a radical nation that indirectly threatened nuclear war with the West. If the United States deterred such large powers, it should certainly be able to deter the smaller and poorer Iran and North Korea. It is also a good bet that both unpopular, autocratic governments will collapse at some time in the future. In addition, the United States could offer these two nuclear powers limited assistance in safeguarding their nuclear weapons against theft and tips on keeping control of them in order to avoid an accidental or unauthorized launch.
Acceptance, deterrence, and limited technical assistance are smarter policies than counterproductive U.S. saber rattling and belligerence, which merely cause more countries to start or accelerate secret nuclear programs in order to obtain the ultimate weapon to keep the United States at bay.
I accept reality. I also fear reality. WWIII is on it's way.
bush and his monkey gang needs to accept reality.
You know experts say that these wars (afghan, iraq, and syria/iran/libya on the list) are initial stages of WWIII. I think its envitable and we will see it coming soon.
Hitler started WWII and Hitler 2 (Bush) started WWIII (still in its infancy)
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks