posted on January 2, 2006 10:08:59 PM
As we've all been hearing, Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons even though several countries have tried to work with them to prevent their continuation of their plans.
What are your opinions???? If they don't agree to stop....what do YOU suggest the U.S. do about it?
---------------
Dec. 31, 2005 19:33 | Updated Jan. 1, 2006 6:38
'US planning strike against Iran'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Talkbacks for this article: 200
The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.
The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.
According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.
The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan.
American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation.
Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.
posted on January 3, 2006 05:12:19 AM new
A statement made by someone is not a lie if the person making the statement believes what they are saying is true.
If I'm in a house and there are no windows, but I hear something on the roof that to me sounds just like rain and I call a friend who has windows to tell her it's raining was I lying when she discovers by looking out her window that it's not raining? Or, was I simply mistaken?
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 3, 2006 06:03:00 AM new
From someone I know in Europe who has been reading up on all of this: "The newspaper publishing the article you sent (I copied and emailed it to him to see what he thought of the situation) quotes the Berlin daily "Der Tagesspiegel", but then goes on to refer to the much-respected political magazine "Der Spiegel" as if it was the same thing. The two publications are not the same. I would not rely on what turns out to be the Jerusalem Post for unbiased reporting."
Here's an article he emailed me from Der Spiegel:
Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.
It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.
German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.
The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.
DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.
In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.
Links to al-Qaida?
Members of the People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan (ARGK) who are the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in mountain hideout in northern Iraq near the Turkish border.
According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.
The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.
The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."
Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.
At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."
How great is the threat?
So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.
But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.
Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.
Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.
Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.
Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.
At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.
Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from a mild stroke. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.
The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner.
It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.
posted on January 3, 2006 08:25:44 AM new
Cheryl writes:
A statement made by someone is not a lie if the person making the statement believes what they are saying is true.
If I'm in a house and there are no windows, but I hear something on the roof that to me sounds just like rain and I call a friend who has windows to tell her it's raining was I lying when she discovers by looking out her window that it's not raining? Or, was I simply mistaken?
Cheryl that would be called a mental illness.
That's why there were no windows in your room. How could you call a friend when they had you in a straight jacket?
posted on January 4, 2006 11:43:32 AM new
This "Letter of Apology" was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired:
For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.
I humbly offer my opinion here:
I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.
I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.
I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.
I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.
I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.
I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."
I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.
I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.
I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.
I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.
I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.
I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.
I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."
I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!
I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.
America will get past this latest absurdity.
We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.
We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.
Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?
Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.
If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait! You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.
posted on January 4, 2006 11:58:19 AM new
LOL, Colin. Truth be told, there are no windows to keep me from jumping out of them when my BF is driving me crazy. Of course, I have windows. Although, during the winter months here I can do without them.
Edited to correct my confusion. LOL! The back pain was worse than I thought. Thanks, Linda.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jan 4, 2006 12:57 PM ]
Claim: Retired U.S. Marine Corps General Chuck Pitman wrote a 'letter of apology' in response to the prisoner abuse controversy in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.
Status: False.
Origins: As we've seen over and over, articles circulated via e-mail forwarding often lose their proper context and attribution, and authorship ends up being credited to someone who merely passed the text along and had no hand in actually writing it. This is especially true when the forwarder appears to have some tangible connection to the subject of the article — when, say, a crime warning is passed along by a law enforcement officer, or a piece touching on military affairs passes through the mailbox of a (current or former) member of the armed services.
In this fashion, the name of retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman evidently became attached to the "Letter of Apology" reproduced above sometime in 2005, although he was not its author. As far as we know, the original source was an article entitled "My Apology to the Arab World," penned by Dr. Mike S. Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and published on Townhall.com on 14 June 2004.
As typically happens in such circumstances, the original text has undergone numerous additions, deletions, and amendations as it has been passed from inbox to inbox in the months since it was first published, so the version circulated by e-mail now significantly differs from the original version.
posted on January 4, 2006 05:36:53 PM new
fair enough....but what this email and most like it do is point out VERY TRUE facts.
I don't see the lefties denying any of this....nope ....just hit some site that claims it's not true.
From YOUR OWN post - [i]As far as we know, the original source was an article entitled "My Apology to the Arab World," penned by Dr. Mike S. Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and published on Townhall.com on 14 June 2004.
As typically happens in such circumstances, the original text has undergone numerous additions, deletions, and amendations as it has been passed from inbox to inbox in the months since it was first published, so the version circulated by e-mail now significantly differs from the original version[/i].
So....no one can really dispute that this is EXACT what has gone on BY many of those that like to believe they support our troops or are patriots to our Nation....when they're not. BECAUSE their personal bias only works one way....against America's best interests.
As they have in every war this country ever entered.
posted on January 4, 2006 05:40:54 PM new
Oh and bunni - I didn't see anywhere where snopes had a personal denial from this Marine that he did repost it himself. His picture and rank before he retired as there with the email.
So..maybe you see where HE, himself denied being a part of writing this or adding to it and passing it along? I sure don't.
Imo, a direct denial from HIM would make me then believe it....not snopes. Just because they often can't find the direct so to these emails...and so admit that themselves.
posted on January 4, 2006 05:53:39 PM new
That's just what I've said....and just what they admit to....they can't....they have no denial this Marina passed it on....they're only stating HE doesn't get credit for being the original author....not that what HE passed along isn't true.
"and authorship ends up being credited to someone who merely passed the text along and had no hand in actually writing it. This is especially true when the forwarder appears to have some tangible connection to the subject of the article — when, say, a crime warning is passed along by a law enforcement officer, or a piece touching on military affairs passes through the mailbox of a (current or former) member of the armed services.
In this fashion, the name of retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman evidently became attached to the "Letter of Apology" reproduced above sometime in 2005, although he was not its author. As far as we know, the original source was an article entitled "My Apology to the Arab World," penned by Dr. Mike S. Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and published on Townhall.com on 14 June 2004.
As far as we know to me implies they're not guaranteeing their position. And there is NO denial from this Marine.
You think snopes is just perfect, I don't think everything they state is correct. The chances of them being correct about all they check out...I'd bet doesn't run anywhere near 100%. No site it perfect...although I will agree they do give it their best shot.
And again, IMO, every line written in that email speaks the truth about how the anti-war crowd, IMO, does NOT support the US position....but will gladly and real quickly slam our position and not ONCE slam those we are fighting against.
posted on January 4, 2006 06:02:52 PM new
Oh, for pity's sake, Linda!!! If you had just gone to Townhall.com you could have found the original post made by Adams in which he gives HIS apology to the Arab world--the apology that you posted here. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2004/06/14/12021.html
Mike S. Adams is as right wing as you or any other neocon could wish, and the only reason I can think of that some neocon took off Adams' name and stuck on the general's is that, gee golly, it sound so much BETTER, so much more MANLY, so much more PATRIOTIC if one attributes it to a GENERAL instead of a professor. Adams, BTW, has his own website you may enjoy at http://www.dradams.org/.
posted on January 4, 2006 06:14:41 PM new
bunni - You're totally missing my point.
I'm NOT discussing whether or not THIS Marine first authored this piece.
I'm say it's just how I see the anti-war folks. Those who don't think we have a right to take pre-empetive action UNTIL we are attacked.
And to say that is also my opinion - every line written in that email - of the truth of why we face so many lefties here who appear to me to think we should do nothing to stop Iran from getting their nuclear weapons program off and running.
Those here who ONLY point out what the see as America doing WRONG....but NEVER, EVER hold our enemies to the same standard. So much so that to me they appear to support them over our own country.
That is my point. Not arguing whether this Marine passed an article along or not.
posted on January 4, 2006 11:03:16 PM new
The authorship of the piece is totally irrelevant. If it was written by an inmate of a psyche ward, it would not change the irony of the message.
posted on January 5, 2006 09:10:00 AM new
One MORE option off the table....the leaders in Iran are NOT interested in diplomacy....in THEIR opinion, it's a 'waste of time'.
Rift With West Widens as Iran Plans to Resume Nuclear 'R&D'
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
January 05, 2006
(CNSNews.com) -
Iran's decision to resume nuclear research, suspended under outside pressure two years ago, has brought relations between Tehran and the West to a new low.
Six months after his unexpected election victory, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week signaled a further shift in foreign policy, charging that his predecessors' diplomacy and detente with the West had been a waste of time.
The theme was picked up by Tehran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, who was quoted as telling Iranian television that the previous government's agreement to suspend research and development on atomic fuel had been "irrational" and "a mistake."
That agreement was reached in late 2003 during negotiations with the European Union, represented by the "E.U.-3" trio of Britain, Germany and France.
Iran on Tuesday formally notified the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that it was lifting the suspension, with research to resume on January 9.
The latest move brought expressions of concern from the E.U.-3, with German and French officials calling it worrying and IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei asking Iran to clarify the decision.
The State Department said that if Iran does take further steps related to uranium enrichment, "then the international community should consider additional measures to constrain Iran's activities."
The U.S. and E.U. suspect that the nuclear activities - pursued in secret for 18 years until exposed in 2003 - are a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
Iran denies the charge, saying the program is purely for generating electricity, and asserting it has the right under international treaties to a peaceful nuclear power program.
But Washington says that by concealing its activities Iran has squandered the international community's trust. It also questions Iran's need for nuclear energy.
"Iran is a country that is rich in hydrocarbons, both in gas reserves and oil reserves," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a briefing. "Why they believe they need a civilian nuclear power-generating capacity is, frankly, inexplicable."
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 5, 2006 09:17 AM ]
posted on January 5, 2006 09:34:04 AM new
116 Dead in Series of Attacks in Iraq
Updated 11:52 AM ET January 5, 2006
By SAMEER N. YACOUB
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Suicide bombers targeted Shiite pilgrims in the south and police recruits in central Iraq, and a roadside bomb killed five U.S. soldiers, bringing Thursday's death toll to at least 116 people in a series of attacks as politicians tried to form a coalition government.
The two-day toll from insurgent attacks rose to 169, reflecting a dramatic upsurge in bloodshed following the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. Some leading Sunni politicians accuse the Shiite-led government of condoning fraud in the voting.
Iraq's prime minister denounced the violence as an attempt to derail the political process at a time when progress was being made toward including the Sunnis in a new, broad-based government and thereby weakening the Sunni-led insurgency.
But Iraq's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, blamed the violence on Sunni Arab groups that fared poorly in the elections. SCIRI warned that Shiite patience was wearing thin, and it accused the U.S.-led coalition forces of restraining the Iraqi army and its police forces.
Thursday's death toll _ the largest single-day total since Sept. 14, when 112 died, and one of the bloodiest days in the three-year insurgency _ included the death of five American soldiers killed by a roadside bomb while patrolling the Baghdad area, the U.S. military said.
Earlier, Iraqi police Capt. Rahim Slaho said the U.S. convoy was heading for the Shiite holy city of Karbala when it was attacked 15 miles south of the city, and five soldiers were killed.
At least 2,188 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.
have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.
