57 replies to this topic

[bud]

From the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the head of Mossad, the experts are speaking out against attacking Iran over its nuclear program, but hawks like the GOP presidential candidates are drowning out the warnings.

here is a breakdown of some of the experts. from the u.s.

In 2007, the U.S. intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iran argued that the Iranian regime—loathsome as it is—is “guided by a cost-benefit approach.” In 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress that “we continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach.” Last week, Gen. Ron Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that “the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or provoke a conflict.” Last weekend, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor.”

from israel:

Most of the Israeli security officials who have commented publicly have said similar things. In December, Haaretz reported that Mossad chief Tamir Pardo had called Iran a threat, but not an existential one. Earlier this month, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy echoed that view, declaring that “it is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel.” That same week, former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said virtually the same thing: that “Iran poses a serious threat but not an existential one.”

link

so i wonder why there are people who are still salivating at the chance for another war.

[olpfan1]

Right wingers always want a war

[bush_cheney2004]

Madeleine Albright to Colin Powell concerning Bosnia:

"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it" -

[Moonlight Graham]

so i wonder why there are people who are still salivating at the chance for another war.

Because they're a bunch of grumpy white guys who figure themselves tough hard-asses. Unfortunately, they don't seem analyze the situation logically, and, also unfortunately, they occupy positions of power.

Most of the GOP candidates are either grumpy hard-asses themselves (Gingrich), or face pressure to talk hawkish because those voting for them are grumpy white hard-asses who, despite many not knowing butt-all about the situation or have the ability to look at it rationally, put pressure on these GOP'ers (and even Obama) to appear hawkish and tough on foreign policy/Iran.

[DogOnPorch]

...it is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel.

Just Tel Aviv with 15-18kt device. To take out Israel it will take Iran a while longer plus a hydrogen bomb.

15 kilotonnes.



3.3 megatonnes.

[Wolf Larsen]

Some of the other posters were correct about some things. One poster said that the right-wingers are always looking for a war. That's true. Another poster said that the Republican candidates are a bunch of grumpy white guys looking to act tough. Also true.

But don't be surprised if Obama gets the US in a war with Iran. The Democrats are warmongers just like the Republicans.

Can you imagine that? On the heels of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the crazy politicians of both political parties are saber-rattling over Iran. These politicians of both political parties are loose cannons. They can't be trusted Republican or Democrat. One of these war-happy loonies in the White House is going to push the atomic button one day.

[Wild Bill]

You know, I'm always surprised that so many people ignore the simplest explanations.

Isn't it more likely that the hawks just don't believe the doves?

Bud opens up with a couple of experts who believe one side of the argument. He appears to take their views as gospel, as facts of the universe that can't be denied. By his lights, if you disagree you simply must be wrong!

This is more of a religious than a logical argument.

There are other experts who disagree. More than that, a country like Israel has no choice but to take threats seriously, since they simply cannot afford to make a mistake and lose. Too much blood is at stake. If Bud and his experts are wrong, they themselves will not suffer in the slightest! They have no skin in the game, as it were.

[eyeball]

You know, I'm always surprised that so many people ignore the simplest explanations.

Isn't it more likely that the hawks just don't believe the doves?

Except we're not hawks and doves simply following their instincts, we're human beings with the will to choose otherwise.

[Smallc]

I'm not really sure what the answer is here. I think it's really too early for any action on Iran. If Israel feels threatened though, I don't think there will be any stopping a conflict.

[bush_cheney2004]

... They can't be trusted Republican or Democrat. One of these war-happy loonies in the White House is going to push the atomic button one day.

That's right...because both parties are American. There is no atomic button..it's more like a pistol grip trigger. More fun that way.

[bud]

You know, I'm always surprised that so many people ignore the simplest explanations.

Isn't it more likely that the hawks just don't believe the doves?

you're calling the current mossad chief, the former mossad chief and former IDF chief, doves.

i see.

that's your reason for their comments. it's because they're doves. it's totally not because they're actual experts who have decades of experience and know the ins and outs of israel's capabilities and iran's capabilities and intentions. right.

can you name some experts who are for israel attacking iran?

[DogOnPorch]

You're the 'expert' who obsessed with Jews and their evil plots to control the planet. You're the 'expert' who keeps telling the crowd that Germa Iran is not a threat but, rather, Polan Israel is the threat.

[bud]

You're the 'expert' who obsessed with Jews and their evil plots to control the planet. You're the 'expert' who keeps telling the crowd that Germa Iran is not a threat but, rather, Polan Israel is the threat.

you're the worst at playing the anti-semite card. absolutely pathetic.

do you have a response to what the current and ex mossad chiefs have said? what about the idf chief? do their comments make your head want to explode?

[DogOnPorch]

you're the worst at playing the anti-semite card. absolutely pathetic.

do you have a response to what the current and ex mossad chiefs have said? what about the idf chief? do their comments make your head want to explode?

Don't you have me on ignore? C'mon. Show some spine.

[bud]

Don't you have me on ignore? C'mon. Show some spine.

i'm a bleeding heart, remember? i believe in giving the less fortunate a chance.

so here is your third and last chance:

do you have any comments about what the current and ex mossad chiefs, and the former idf chief or what u.s. director of national intelligence or general burgess and general dempsey have to say?

here, i'll make it easier for you:

In 2007, the U.S. intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iran argued that the Iranian regime—loathsome as it is—is “guided by a cost-benefit approach.” In 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress that “we continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach.” Last week, Gen. Ron Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that “the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or provoke a conflict.” Last weekend, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor.”

from israel:

Most of the Israeli security officials who have commented publicly have said similar things. In December, Haaretz reported that Mossad chief Tamir Pardo had called Iran a threat, but not an existential one. Earlier this month, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy echoed that view, declaring that “it is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel.” That same week, former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said virtually the same thing: that “Iran poses a serious threat but not an existential one.”