Panetta admits Iran not developing nuclear weapons

[bpwallace49]

And his promise to bring the troops home? My buddy just got back from Afghanistan and sees no point in what we're still doing over there. The goal of the mission was to get Bin Laden, and they did. Yet we've stayed there, interfered in Libya, now Syria, and we wonder why they freaking hate us...

 

Isnt the plan for a withdrawal by 2014?

 

Quick question . . since the surge in 2009, have troop levels increased or decreased? TIA

[Azazello1313]

May be irrelevant to your point, but I certainly do not think sanctions as a catalyst for "pre-emptive" retaliation is irrelevant semantics.

 

well, a couple points:

1) it's not like these sanctions are out of the blue. they've been warned and warned again by the "global community" not to pursue nukes, and that sanctions will follow if they do. the escalation has been very much a conscious choice on their part every step of the way, and the sanctions are an absolutely foreseeable by-product. those with a tenuous grip on power inside Iran see the sabre-rattling and fomenting anti-Israel sentiment as the key to maintaining power.

2) they're talking about pre-empting an Israeli strike, not further sanctions. in that sense, Iranian military action would very much be "pre-emptive" in every sense of the word. "we will act without waiting for their actions," that is the very definition of "pre-emptive".

 

if you want to say that sanctions are ineffective and possibly even counterproductive, I'd probably agree with you. but equating them to an act of war and portraying Iran as a victim in all of this seems to be rather strained reasoning.

[matt770]

NO! YOU'RE AN IDIOT! YOU'RE WRONG FOR BELIEVING THAT! YOU'RE A FASCIST! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

[detlef]

Gotcha, so it's wrong if Bush goes to war for oil according to liberals, but if we claim Obama is doing the same thing, it's a "conspiracy".

 

(ETA: )

I guess I got the impression that you were in that group because you used the word "we" in this post, way back earlier in this very thread.

 

Dude, you must have gotten the wrong view of me from our recent discussions. I'm a conservative libertarian, not a neocon chickenhawk, nor even republican for what it stands for today.

 

I've spoken out plenty about Bush here I'm sure (you could probably find some good ones jsut searching for "conspiracy"), but at least I knew by his second term that he was warmongerer I couldn't trust. I might have actually voted for Obama if I knew that he was more than just empty rhetoric he wasn't going to deliver on. When he got elected, I had a sense of, well let's see if he'll at least get us out of these conflicts, and I can handle better what he does here. But all he's done is jsut do it more quietly than Bush did. In fact, you're correct that there really is no difference between repoublicans and democrats in office anymore, other than one side screams war and the other whispers peace and does it through quiet "operations" like Libya and sanctions on Iran.

 

And dude, I'm being loud because I know, you know, we all know people who are needlessly being put in harms way as we bankrupt ourselves with imperialism all over the world.

Regardless, I am not now, or ever have been in favor of the degree to which we involve ourselves in the Middle East. Go ahead, be loud. It's something worth being loud about. But when you start throwing around non-truths, nobody gives a crap about what you're saying. So it sort of diminishes the value of being loud.

[delusions of grandeur]

well, a couple points:

1) it's not like these sanctions are out of the blue. they've been warned and warned again by the "global community" not to pursue nukes, and that sanctions will follow if they do. the escalation has been very much a conscious choice on their part every step of the way, and the sanctions are an absolutely foreseeable by-product. those with a tenuous grip on power inside Iran see the sabre-rattling and fomenting anti-Israel sentiment as the key to maintaining power.

2) they're talking about pre-empting an Israeli strike, not further sanctions. in that sense, Iranian military action would very much be "pre-emptive" in every sense of the word. "we will act without waiting for their actions," that is the very definition of "pre-emptive".

 

if you want to say that sanctions are ineffective and possibly even counterproductive, I'd probably agree with you. but equating them to an act of war and portraying Iran as a victim in all of this seems to be rather strained reasoning.

Where's the evidence they're pursuing nukes. I've not seen any concrete evidence of that, and with Panetta's recent words, there seems to be little indication that more sanctions were needed, that yes, might seriously escalate things in the Straight of Hormuz.

 

And here's what the article said, though yes, it was vague:

Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered, the deputy head of the Islamic Republic's armed forces was quoted by a semi-official news agency as saying Tuesday.

 

That's what sanctions do. I'm not trying to paint Iran out like a saint here, I'm just showing how we're kicking the hornets nest in every possibly way besides all-out declaring war on them.

[bpwallace49]

Where's the evidence they're pursuing nukes. I've not seen any concrete evidence of that, and with Panetta's recent words, there seems to be little indication that more sanctions were needed, that yes, might seriously escalate things in the Straight of Hormuz.

 

And here's what the article said, though yes, it was vague:

 

 

That's what sanctions do. I'm not trying to paint Iran out like a saint here, I'm just showing how we're kicking the hornets nest in every possibly way besides all-out declaring war on them.

 

Maybe Iraq can sell them some left over trailers that have "WMD onboard" signs in the rear window?

[delusions of grandeur]

I guess I got the impression that you were in that group because you used the word "we" in this post, way back earlier in this very thread.

 

 

Regardless, I am not now, or ever have been in favor of the degree to which we involve ourselves in the Middle East. Go ahead, be loud. It's something worth being loud about. But when you start throwing around non-truths, nobody gives a crap about what you're saying. So it sort of diminishes the value of being loud.

I meant "we" referring to skeptics like me who bushy just loves to paint as a kook.

 

What have I said that's not true? I'm not going act like an expert, and surely I may have heard alot of non-truths mixed in with the truth, so what have I gotten wrong, other than omitting a long history of imperialism that Obama is just latest example of?

[bushwacked]

I, for one, think it's high time Obama got his fair share of criticism for letting the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor.

[delusions of grandeur]

Isnt the plan for a withdrawal by 2014?

 

Quick question . . since the surge in 2009, have troop levels increased or decreased? TIA

Umm, all I know is my buddy just got back and is hoping to get deployed to Africa next so he doesn't have to deal with that crap anymore.

 

But I'll take your word for it, that 13 years after we went into Afghanistan, 11 years after Iraq, 6 years after Obama takes office, 5 after we got Bin Laden, we can finally get out (assuming of course they just don't get deployed the next Libya or Syria, or rather next Iraq and Afganistan, sice they'll have all that they'll have much more manpower available to continue on ).

Edited February 21, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[bpwallace49]

Umm, all I know is my buddy just got back and is hoping to get deployed to Africa next so he doesn't have to deal with that crap anymore.

 

But I'll take your word for it, that 12 years after we went into Afghanistan, 9 years after Iraq, 6 years after Obama takes office we can finally get out (assuming of course they just don't get deployed the next Libya or Syria, or rather next Iraq and Afganistan, sice they'll have all that they'll have much more manpower available to continue on ).

 

If your point was just to go on an Ron paul fueled rant about removal of all US forces from across the world, then I apologize for posting.

[billay]

Who's beating the war drum?

Sorry, given the angle of your post, I would have thought it was evident that I meant who in the United States is beating the war drum? I think it's pretty evident that the last thing the Obama administration has any desire to do is to go through with a military strike on Iran. Hell, they don't even want the Israelis to do it, though that has more to do with politics than with foreign policy.

[delusions of grandeur]

If your point was just to go on an Ron paul fueled rant about removal of all US forces from across the world, then I apologize for posting.

I've been preaching against war a whole lot longer than I've been a Paul supporter. Please don't inject my political preference into this, when I haven't brought it into it myself. I could have easily posted the video about 1,000 soldiers who marched on the White House yesterday in support of Dr. Paul, (and of course wasn't covered by the media), but how about we leave this to the merits of our foreign conflicts. I'm still looking for someone to show me real proof that Iran is really pursuing a bomb, when Panetta says they aren't. This has little do to do with election politics, and everything to do with establishment politics.

 

ETA; and I almost feel silly even debating why it should matter if Iran got a bomb, when Israel has hundreds, and so they'd be bombing their own holy land and guaranteeing their own country's obliteration.

 

ETA2: Didn't see this great post though

How many wars have been fought between countries that have nuclear weapons again? Why bother with yet another scaaarrry middle east non-threat? Was nothing learned in Iraq? -sigh-

 

Hell . . . Pakistan and India have been enemies for . . well . . forever. They HATE each other. And yet they havent dropped nukes on each other . . .

Edited February 21, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[Pope Flick]

Umm, all I know is my buddy just got back and is hoping to get deployed to Africa next so he doesn't have to deal with that crap anymore.

 

But I'll take your word for it, that 13 years after we went into Afghanistan, 11 years after Iraq, 6 years after Obama takes office, 5 after we got Bin Laden, we can finally get out (assuming of course they just don't get deployed the next Libya or Syria, or rather next Iraq and Afganistan, sice they'll have all that they'll have much more manpower available to continue on ).

 

 

On this topic, it's apparent that's all you know. Obama ran on pulling out of Iraq (check), while upping the troops in Afghanistan (check) AND increasing drone attacks (check for the trifecta). After he popped bin Laden, the Afghanistan draw down began. How hard is that to understand? Did he EVAH say he'd pull out of Afghanistan during the election in 2008?

 

And you're frothing at having your cake and eating it too: you imply you don't believe anything the govt is saying, with the exception of this Panetta quote which you've latched onto at face value. You allow for no finesse here, and state you haven't seen proof of a nuclear arms program.

 

Well, I'm a pretty liberal guy 'round these parts and that stance is koo koo for cocoa puffs. One only has to read between the lines here: Europe has recently singed onto harsh sanctions which is a first. Would they do that if they were as convinced as you? Hardly. Should we take Iranian threats seriously? Of course, as should Israel. Iran is closing on it, and the pressure's getting ratcheted up. Panetta's quote is nothing more than salve on a wound that's getting picked at this week. It means nothing in the big picture, other than some type of vague PR statement that will have no impact on policy.

[Ursa Majoris]

irrelevant semantics.

This made me chuckle.

[delusions of grandeur]

Fair enough on the first part Pope, I went back and read one of Obama's speeches (if we could all jsut live in an Obama speech ) , and as far as Iraq and Afganistan, he's kept his promise for the most part (I guess, we're not out of Afganistan yet, but monetarily we're about to have little choice). But I didn't see the part where we need to continue middle east interventionalism arming a side and contributing to a civil war killing over 1,000 innocent civilians ourselves through military action in an undeclared "operation" on a country that never attacked or has anything to do with us, nor can we afford to intervene with in a recession (and now we're doing the same with the Syrians to install another puppet regime, I assume).

 

Moreover, I guess I'm just amazed that the same ones who rightly blasted Bush for the "pre-emptive" war and dangerous attacks on liberty like the Patroit Act, don't seem to be outraged in the least that Obama would continue meddling in more middle east countries that haven't attacked us before we even get out of the other ones, and extends the Patriot Act and builds on it with NDAA.

 

Second, I've never implied that I don't believe anything the government says, just when there's indication that something stinks. But I'm not sure how I would have any indication that this is just "PR" and not a slip up, when it was only one alternative media site noticed and publcized the interview, and it completely contradicts the official narrative. I'd challenge you to find a mainstream source that says that (he did say it though, there's video in the article). But I'm still waiting on proof they are pursuing nuclear weapons before I assume that Panetta's lying here. Let's just say I'm not going to be terribly surprised when UN inspectors turn up nothing in their trip there as we speak, a la Iraq. I'll have to look back on that script to see where we go next. Maybe Al Quada "affiliated" groups, or did we already use that one up during the Bush years?

 

However, I did find this thread from the Bush years, where you actually are remarkably consistent, except for your current belief in Iran's threat to Israel (which again, makes no sense anyway, as they say they want to liberate the Palestinians... By blowing them and their holy land off the map?)

I find that hard to believe, through the simple fact that a delivery system for a prototype nuke or basic nuke they build won't exist to get it to Israel: they probably don't possess a missile to carry it there (they need something FAR better than a scud) and a bomber would be shot down before it got halfway through iraq.

 

IMO, the most logical target are US forces in iraq, which can be hit by a pickup truck carrying the durn thing. It would even have to get that close to a base to do the damage. Also, that yould make it more difficult to track in terms of it's origins (since there won't be any evidence left) which would create an denourmous debate over where it actually came from and provide them limited deniability.

I agree with 2006 you completely. They would not even be close to this capacity even if they're even close to building one it all, and it would be shot down immeidately with defense missiles.... Oh and as for your question to why Britain and France supported sanctions, I'm guessing it's because they enjoy the leverage they have with them (which is the reason any country wants nukes nowadays. You don't go shooting when everyone is armed).

 

(ETA: and before I get blasted on the last sentence, that's one possible explanation, assuming they even really believe that Iran is pursuing weapons. I'm not willing to theorize on why I think they could be involved if they knew the nuclear threat were fabricated. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on them to prove there's a real threat).

Edited February 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[Apathy]

Where's the evidence they're pursuing nukes. I've not seen any concrete evidence of that, and with Panetta's recent words, there seems to be little indication that more sanctions were needed, that yes, might seriously escalate things in the Straight of Hormuz.

Oil reserves that will last them 100+ years if no new oil is found + horrible economy (inclusive of high unemployment and rampant corruption)...doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are doing.

[Ice1]

Regardless of Panetta's comments, the USA is stockpiling Big Blu for a reason. What we do know is Iran has very hardened nuclear facilities and the USA needed a non nuclear option to take them out.

 

There is no way Iran will be able to continue down this path. They have spread out their nuclear facilities in such a way it is pretty obvious what is going on.

 

It will not matter if Obama or a Republican wins the the election. Israel will not allow it and the USA will not allow Iran to go forward much longer. Iran has been supplying rockets for years that have been randomly fired on Israel, will not recognize their right to exist, and have already called for their annihilation.

 

This is a white hot zone right now with the world economy at stake and Israel will try to destroy their nuclear capability and if not they will destroy Tehran if needed regardless of what we do.

 

Thinking otherwise is foolish. They survived massive casualties as they were being exterminated in WWII and when an enemy says they will be destroyed they will not take this as an idle threat hoping they are simply just creating energy.

 

No telling when an attack will come, but it will come. Iran will continue to rattle their sabers right up until a tactical nuke reduces their ability to make war if needed. The world may have forgotten the instant devastation certain weapons bring but I assure Israel will use all means available to survive and that includes preemptive measures.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Ice1

[Pope Flick]

I agree with 2006 you completely. They would not even be close to this capacity even if they're even close to building one it all, and it would be shot down immeidately with defense missiles.... Oh and as for your question to why Britain and France supported sanctions, I'm guessing it's because they enjoy the leverage they have with them (which is the reason any country wants nukes nowadays. You don't go shooting when everyone is armed).

 

 

Well, with all due respect, please point me to the defensive missile shield that works. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Also, historically Europe has never gone along with Iranian sanctions, so I am of the opinion that your guess is way off. They wouldn't be wading into this without good reason on their end, and the reason you cite isn't anything new: something changed recently to get them involved.

 

And 6 years after I posted that it isn't unreasonable to assume that they have used the nearly 2000 days to close the gap and become more advanced.

 

And LMFAO at your alluding to "well Obama never said he'd invade Libya" idea, as if he had a crystal ball in 2008, and ignoring that fact that the Arab League approached us for intervention - something that still hasn't been done in regards to Syria. (Which BTW has a historical tie to France -just like Libya- and who's involvement will be necessary of something starts to happen in Damascus).

[SheikYerbuti]

This is a white hot zone right now with the world economy at stake

 

A war between Iran and Israel would jeopardize the price of oil until the conflict is resolved, and there might be a temporary pullback in the stock market (which has arguably run up too fast since Thanksgiving and therefore possibly due for a pullback anyway). But the world economy is not at stake here. (Just my opinion, obv).

[Ursa Majoris]

Also, historically Europe has never gone along with Iranian sanctions, so I am of the opinion that your guess is way off. They wouldn't be wading into this without good reason on their end, and the reason you cite isn't anything new: something changed recently to get them involved.

Given the precarious state of the European economy, whatever it was that changed must have been pretty heavy for them to risk prices going up.

[delusions of grandeur]

Well, with all due respect, please point me to the defensive missile shield that works. I have no idea what you're talking about.

You really want me to point you to the fact that the US and all of their middle east allies have ample missile defense in place? Sorry, don't have the time today to debunk that, but you said yourself you doubted they had the capability to even strike Israel. What then has changed to make you think they can, when there's not concrete indication they're any clsoer to having a bomb than they were in 2006, or that we're any less capable of intercepting it?

Also, historically Europe has never gone along with Iranian sanctions, so I am of the opinion that your guess is way off. They wouldn't be wading into this without good reason on their end, and the reason you cite isn't anything new: something changed recently to get them involved.

Britain has historically been a key ally in the WOT and in Iraq, and France in recent years has appeared to become more militaristic than passive under new leadership. So I can't really determine whether their intentions are benevolent, as you suggest, or if their reasoning might be similar to the lies and misinformation they used to get into Iraq.

And LMFAO at your alluding to "well Obama never said he'd invade Libya" idea, as if he had a crystal ball in 2008, and ignoring that fact that the Arab League approached us for intervention - something that still hasn't been done in regards to Syria. (Which BTW has a historical tie to France -just like Libya- and who's involvement will be necessary of something starts to happen in Damascus).

They are contemplating arming and supporting Syrian rebels as we speak. They are of course treading cautiously with Russia and Iran opposing the non-peaceful intervention, but this is business as usual. Libya was not just some isolated intervention, when we continue to make the rounds to nearly every single Middle East country to try to install a more US-friendly puppet government, even if that means increasing violence.

 

As for Iran, the report from the IAEA that they wouldn't let them tour one of their private facilities does raise some doubt in my mind that their nuclear intentions are purely noble (though not providing full transparency doesn't prove that either), but seriously, nukes are like the VCRs of weapons. They're only used for leverage. I'm far more worried about the use of EMPs, that can selectively cause the damage of a nuke, or whatever you want them to do really, with none of the fallout to hurt the resources or "holy land". Nukes are a convenient excuse, IMO.

[bpwallace49]

, when we continue to make the rounds to nearly every single Middle East country to try to install a more US-friendly puppet government, even if that means increasing violence.

 

 

Umm . . . do you have any idea that Mubarak was supported by the US and a "close ally"? Cmon DoG . . .get it together.

[delusions of grandeur]

Regardless of Panetta's comments, the USA is stockpiling Big Blu for a reason. What we do know is Iran has very hardened nuclear facilities and the USA needed a non nuclear option to take them out.

 

There is no way Iran will be able to continue down this path. They have spread out their nuclear facilities in such a way it is pretty obvious what is going on.

 

It will not matter if Obama or a Republican wins the the election. Israel will not allow it and the USA will not allow Iran to go forward much longer. Iran has been supplying rockets for years that have been randomly fired on Israel, will not recognize their right to exist, and have already called for their annihilation.

 

This is a white hot zone right now with the world economy at stake and Israel will try to destroy their nuclear capability and if not they will destroy Tehran if needed regardless of what we do.

 

Thinking otherwise is foolish. They survived massive casualties as they were being exterminated in WWII and when an enemy says they will be destroyed they will not take this as an idle threat hoping they are simply just creating energy.

 

No telling when an attack will come, but it will come. Iran will continue to rattle their sabers right up until a tactical nuke reduces their ability to make war if needed. The world may have forgotten the instant devastation certain weapons bring but I assure Israel will use all means available to survive and that includes preemptive measures.

1) Iran will not nuke their holy land in Isreal, while simultaneously guaranteeing their own destruction. Even if they gave it to a terrorist to detonate, it would undoubtedly be traced back to them (really regardless of who actually does it).

 

2) That is a misquote that has taken a life of it's own about "wiping Isreal off the map". Huge difference between opposing a regime, and taking a quote to mean they'll annihilate their holy land.

 

3)The world economy is at stake if we intervene. I don't think you could possibly make the case that Iran having a nuke is a threat to the global economy. As BP said earlier, Pakistan and India HATE eachother, but both know that you can't go shooting when the other guy is armed. Again, nukes are about leverage. No country with nukes has ever attacked another country with nukes.

[delusions of grandeur]

Umm . . . do you have any idea that Mubarak was supported by the US and a "close ally"? Cmon DoG . . .get it together.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not that familiar with the Egypt situation, but if we intervened to oust him there was a reason. I'm assuming we must have or you wouldn't be bringing this up?

 

There have been plenty of "puppet governments" that ended up not being team players and were replaced. I'm not familiar enough, however with that situation to make any claims on what might have happened. But this is not my conspiratorial view, this is backed up in academia that installing US-friendly dictators even are primary goals in overseas operations.

[Pope Flick]

You really want me to point you to the fact that the US and all of their middle east allies have ample missile defense in place? Sorry, don't have the time today to debunk that, but you said yourself you doubted they had the capability to even strike Israel. What then has changed to make you think they can, when there's not concrete indication they're any clsoer to having a bomb than they were in 2006, or that we're any less capable of intercepting it?

 

 

Why yes, yes I do. If you're referring to the Iron Dome possessed by Israel I'll simply point out it's a derivative of the Patriot system that NEVER worked as advertised, and in fact was fairly discredited at having even shot down more than one or two scuds during Gulf War 1.

 

http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wponac-missilemilestones.htm

 

Lots have happened since 2006. Chinese missile purchases for one thing. Times do change.

 

And you're barely reading what I'm saying: with Europe involved now that's not benevolent, it's a clear ratchet up they haven't pursued before. Why do you think that is? Also, the Arab Spring is just that, something largely driven by the populations of countries. When stuff like that happens it's foolish not to get involved to steer things your/our way. Those revolution trains left, we either watch or hop on board. Obviously, each situation has its own set of issues, whether Egypt, Libya or Syria but simply shrugging our shoulders and not engaging is silly.