Geopolitics is fun! (Iran on a precipice edition) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Geopolitics is fun! (Iran on a precipice edition)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby statsman88 » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:59 pm

Coppermine wrote:
statsman88 wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Well now all the brainwashed ones can finally believe it too:

Guardian wrote:Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war


'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
.


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian



An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

Mr Gimble described a unit called the Office for Special Plans, authorised by then Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and overseen by the former policy chief Douglas Feith, to review raw intelligence on Iraq. The main focus of the unit was establishing a link between Saddam and al-Qaida - going against the consensus in the intelligence community that the Iraqi leader had nothing to do with the September 11 2001 attacks.
Link


Interesting stuff Chrisy, I'm posting over here on the baseball side because I know people over here will actually talk about this ;-D

Ive heard stories about this for a bit, but it seems that is it sorta confirmed (or as confirmed as our messed up media will get. Its so hard to decipher stories into fact vs. truth. ) so what is America going to do about it? Probably nothing. I would imagine most Americans are happy that Saddam is no longer in power, (although I would argue it will make Iraq and America's involvement there worse now that he's gone), so I really don't see any action being taken over this story that he went after Saddam even if it was kinda cheap the way he did it.


I can honestly say that I am unhappy Saddam is no longer in power. I can't look at this as simplistically as the world has been ridden of a tyrant. Saddam was a stabilizing force in the chaotic middle east, particularly to the other radical power, Iran's Ahmadinejad. Now, not only is Iraq the 'breeding ground' for ism it previously was not, but Iran's power has increased dramatically on the world stage and has risen as legitimate threat to middle eastern stability.


Yes, i would sorta argue the same thing. Since Saddam was a Sunni, the 2 parties are at total war now since they fear losing power to the other. And really is the only thing Iraq and Iran know and have grown accustomed to, and its only fitting that a violent ruler is in power. Now that he is gone, we are stuck in the violent chaos.

Thats what I think in a nutshell, but if you did a poll, I bet most people would say they are better off now that Saddam is gone, even though Saddam probably wasn't a real threat to the US
"Let's Keep The Friendly Confines Friendly" - Ernie Banks
statsman88
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 727
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:20 am

statsman88 wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
statsman88 wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Well now all the brainwashed ones can finally believe it too:

Guardian wrote:Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war


'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
.


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian



An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

Mr Gimble described a unit called the Office for Special Plans, authorised by then Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and overseen by the former policy chief Douglas Feith, to review raw intelligence on Iraq. The main focus of the unit was establishing a link between Saddam and al-Qaida - going against the consensus in the intelligence community that the Iraqi leader had nothing to do with the September 11 2001 attacks.
Link


Interesting stuff Chrisy, I'm posting over here on the baseball side because I know people over here will actually talk about this ;-D

Ive heard stories about this for a bit, but it seems that is it sorta confirmed (or as confirmed as our messed up media will get. Its so hard to decipher stories into fact vs. truth. ) so what is America going to do about it? Probably nothing. I would imagine most Americans are happy that Saddam is no longer in power, (although I would argue it will make Iraq and America's involvement there worse now that he's gone), so I really don't see any action being taken over this story that he went after Saddam even if it was kinda cheap the way he did it.


I can honestly say that I am unhappy Saddam is no longer in power. I can't look at this as simplistically as the world has been ridden of a tyrant. Saddam was a stabilizing force in the chaotic middle east, particularly to the other radical power, Iran's Ahmadinejad. Now, not only is Iraq the 'breeding ground' for ism it previously was not, but Iran's power has increased dramatically on the world stage and has risen as legitimate threat to middle eastern stability.


Yes, i would sorta argue the same thing. Since Saddam was a Sunni, the 2 parties are at total war now since they fear losing power to the other. And really is the only thing Iraq and Iran know and have grown accustomed to, and its only fitting that a violent ruler is in power. Now that he is gone, we are stuck in the violent chaos.

Thats what I think in a nutshell, but if you did a poll, I bet most people would say they are better off now that Saddam is gone, even though Saddam probably wasn't a real threat to the US


Yes it's been so worth the 60+ men boys who died who are from my homes state, the 12 of whom I either directly played football, wrestled or competed in track and field with; Don't think I'm overlooking the 3,000+ dead and 22,400+ wounded who I share a nation with, who my fathers fathers have sacrificed their families and themselves for; Who your fathers, grandfathers and even female family members have sacrificed their lives and families for... so they could fight a war on these principles? What war has the true United States of America fought based on such principles as today's government has? Even Vietnam was based on a infestation of powerful countries which would lead to far more destruction on USA soil and the world, and it wasn't even an official war! The maximum effect of a Middle Eastern conflict does not compare to the scale (in their respective times) or measure of MAD, Hilter, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Cubans, the Confederacy, the Spanish , the French, or the English!

We could have taken Saddam out JFK style...oops bad reference, initially I made this comment because JFK was the one who realized how wars would truly be won in the future, aka Special Ops, Naval Recon (the guys who save the Seals), The Navy Seals etc... Tangent- JFK is my favorite Pres and not because he was assassinated...
I would have liked Saddam taken out by unknown forces ( us ). I'm not sure how practical your preference is Copermine

Anyway, this entire Middles East conflict is entirely related to political maneuvering which completely lacks a sense of responsibility to the Americans who built this country, their heirs and those who propagate it's true values.
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby AcidRock23 » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:53 pm

I think that the problem w/ Iraq, et al is that the lines are drawn in the wrong place.

Iraq should be split up along religious/ ethnic lines. Sell the Sunni parts between Syria, the Saudis and Jordan and the Shiites to Iran and let them sort themselves out. The Kurds would, unfortunately for them, be the odd men out but there's not really any way that we can support them in their current location w/o being committed to a permanent force there as there is in Korea.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby TheRock » Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:17 pm

So let me make sure I've got this right...

America = bad
Ruthless dictators = good

Great. Don't know how I had that one so backwards in my head.

Aside from the continual diversion into unending disagreements about Iraq, I think the Iran discussion has been interesting, I've not really followed the situation in much detail. Much thanks for the article post.
Image
TheRock
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3053
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: America's Heartland

Postby Coppermine » Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:16 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote: I would have liked Saddam taken out by unknown forces ( us ). I'm not sure how practical your preference is Copermine


Personally, I think it would be in America's best interest to have left Saddam in power. Assassinating Saddam via special ops would simply leave a power vacuum that would cause the civil war that is going on today to happen spontaneously; and we wouldn't even have a say in it. Either that, or someone equally ruthless would step in... likely one of his sons, who were considerably more psychotic than he was.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:02 am

TheRock wrote:So let me make sure I've got this right...

America = bad
Ruthless dictators = good

Great. Don't know how I had that one so backwards in my head.



Where do you get that from?

Over the past 30 or so years America has increasingly been doing worse and worse things. I guess it's the natural cycle of any empire. Just remember there are plenty of ruthless dictators we haven't done anything about throughout history.
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:12 am

Coppermine wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote: I would have liked Saddam taken out by unknown forces ( us ). I'm not sure how practical your preference is Copermine


Personally, I think it would be in America's best interest to have left Saddam in power. Assassinating Saddam via special ops would simply leave a power vacuum that would cause the civil war that is going on today to happen spontaneously; and we wouldn't even have a say in it. Either that, or someone equally ruthless would step in... likely one of his sons, who were considerably more psychotic than he was.


I was loaded when I wrote that, so I guess my primal urge to whack Saddam came through. (I used to give presentations in 5-6th grades about how evil Saddam was and how we should whack him). Yes it makes sense to leave the man in power who has achieved the greatest relative stability in his governing region and to do as the Republican's used to say and not play global cops.

Bush is a stereotypical liberal in many ways. I've been hearing it from true conservatives for a while. Good book, The K Street Gang.
Last edited by Chrisy Moltisanti on Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby Coppermine » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:27 am

Well yeah, and that's about it; Saddam's so-called tyrannical, ruthless regime was perhaps the most stable the middle-eastern region has ever seen. I'll continue to ignore comments like TheRock's about how my comments somehow imply that America is bad and that ruthless dictators are good... because that just ignorance.

Clearly, America needs to look out for her best interests. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake, but we're stuck... however, i will not tolerate the excuse that a ruthless dictator has been removed from power. America should not be the "world police." By doing so, we have alienated ourselves on the global scale; we are literally a laughing stock. I understand most people could care less and make their justifications, and that's fine; this is just my point of view. Leaving Saddam in power would have been better for America, the war on terror and for the Iraqi people.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:40 am

LA Times wrote:Putin says U.S. militarism fosters global instability

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
7:29 PM PST, February 10, 2007

Munich, Germany -- Russian President Vladimir V. Putin berated the United States in a major speech Saturday before senior American and European officials, declaring that Washington's militarism had fostered global instability and forced vulnerable nations to seek nuclear weapons.

In harsh language sometimes reminiscent of the Cold War; at other times pleading or mocking, Putin accused the United States of attempting to create a world in which it was free to ignore international law and impose its economic, political and military will.

"We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations," Putin said. "One country, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."...

Stephen Sestanovich, ambassador-at-large to states of the former Soviet Union during the Clinton administration, said Putin most likely spoke out so sharply because he had grown tired of constant U.S. criticism.

"Most Americans are not aware of how heated and agitated the Russians' discussions are about their relationship with the West," he said. "It may come as a surprise to Americans, but for the Russians, the rhetoric on these questions tends to be pretty grim, among the experts and regular folks, about the deterioration of the relationship."

Link
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby Madison » Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:03 am

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:
LA Times wrote:Putin says U.S. militarism fosters global instability

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
7:29 PM PST, February 10, 2007

Munich, Germany -- Russian President Vladimir V. Putin berated the United States in a major speech Saturday before senior American and European officials, declaring that Washington's militarism had fostered global instability and forced vulnerable nations to seek nuclear weapons.

In harsh language sometimes reminiscent of the Cold War; at other times pleading or mocking, Putin accused the United States of attempting to create a world in which it was free to ignore international law and impose its economic, political and military will.

"We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations," Putin said. "One country, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."...

Stephen Sestanovich, ambassador-at-large to states of the former Soviet Union during the Clinton administration, said Putin most likely spoke out so sharply because he had grown tired of constant U.S. criticism.

"Most Americans are not aware of how heated and agitated the Russians' discussions are about their relationship with the West," he said. "It may come as a surprise to Americans, but for the Russians, the rhetoric on these questions tends to be pretty grim, among the experts and regular folks, about the deterioration of the relationship."

Link


I won't comment on Putin's view as I do stipulate that parts of the world don't like us very much due to Bush's politics. No disagreement from me at all on that.

However, this is downright funny:

"We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations,"


This has my stomach hurting from laughing so hard. "Uncontained hyper-use"? Wow. If we ever really did go to war with another country, I hope Putin is still alive to see what we're really capable of doing - provided of course we have a president with enough stones to do what needs to be done. I can't help but continue to laugh at the absurdity of that statement though. :-b

Then again, I could be misreading the article and Putin could mean Bush is threatening him over the phone or something. If that's the case, then obviously I can't comment on it since I don't know what's being said back and forth between the two, but at least then the statement has a slim chance of being true, unlike it does if he's referring to Iraq. :-D
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Monday, Apr. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Baltimore at Boston
(11:05 am)
Kansas City at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
LA Angels at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
St. Louis at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Miami at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Arizona at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
San Diego at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Philadelphia at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Houston at Seattle
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact