johngalt

Recently i read an article in the Wall Street Journal that was about the situation in Iran. They had a little commentary by Donald Rumsfeld. He said that Iran is now starting to build chemical and biological weapons and will also soon have nuclear capabilities. I can't understand why so many people are believing this. My personal opinion of Rumsfeld is that he is an idiot. It seems now that every country we hate has WMD. When will this propoganda end?

Danya

As usual if one excuse won't work they'll recycle them all.

Not convinced of WMD'S? OK then, they're aiding and harboring Al Qaida now. Still not buying it? Next it will be about the poor Iranian people who crave freedom and liberation. As the US is the only democracy dealer/supplier it's our job to give it to them.

First of all, the fact they won't name the sources isn't all that strange but usually they do this when they are telling something that the administration DOESN'T want discussed. Here they are telling us something the administration is eager for us to believe.
Then they say the info is from intelligence reports which "they refuse to discuss" but then go on to discuss names, places, and dates. :blink: Did they forget to leave something out?

And Rumsfeld himself is coming out and making his usual coy comments.
Is that just like 'We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"

He gives the impression of wording his accusations in a way that gives him a loophole once they are disproven. Like saying 'we know' and 'presumably' in the same breath so you aren't really sure which it is but you get the impression they have proof either way.

And "not ungoverned"??? Is English his first language or is he just practicing his doublespeak? Miami Herald

Blixy Sticks

IMO, the probability of Iran attaining nuclear capability is/was much greater than the probability of Iraq's attainment of nuclear capability before we invaded.

This of course, begs the question. Considering the crippling sanctions levied against Iraq for nearly a decade and the well-known fact among experts in the field that Iran is in the process of constructing a Uranium enrichment plant, why did the United States not invade Iran versus Iraq?

Ummm....let me see....could oil have anything to do with it? Nah....you're dreamin. There is no ruthless dictator oppressing the people of Iran. You know, nobdy like the Shah or Saddam, therefore, no liberation of Iranians was necessary.

John Hancock

Took awhile for my memory to kick in but I definitely remember that al-Qaeda were extreme Sunni's and Iran devoted to Shia.

Interestingly another the web is currently under a deluge of Iran al-Qaeda articles from CNN, Faux & their fronting outfits, Washington Times, Washington Posts all of these sources have in the past to have reported Bush Administration misinformation.

Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Yunessi has dismissed as "shameful lies" repeated US allegations that the Islamic republic has been supporting the al-Qaeda network.

"Even though we paid a heavy price" fighting the Taliban, "the Americans accuse us of helping the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda. These are shameful lies," the Qods newspaper quoted him as saying Saturday.

He evoked the "heavy losses suffered by Iran when it was the only one fighting the Taliban," and charged that the ousted hardline Sunni Muslim militia was "created by the United States to dishonour Islam".

Iran fought a proxy war against the Taliban from 1995, when the hardline militia swept into areas along the Iran border and brought with it a massive upsurge in drug trafficking, an fresh exodus of refugees and a threat to Iran's strategic interests.

At that time the militia, supported by US allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, was openly courted by Washington.

Martin Buber

Loren Pechtel

Not very long ago I saw an article that Russia was worried about Iran's nuclear plans. Since when does Rumsfeld control Russia?

Loren Pechtel

While Iran is dangerous they haven't shown the intent to attack others than Iraq did.

Iraq was working for WMD and was very aggressive. It's the COMBINATION that made them so dangerous.

Iran hasn't shown anything like that aggressiveness. They fund terrorism (often with counterfeit US currency!) but their armies don't go marching. Thus they are worrysome but not in the same class as Iraq.

emphryio

you apparently supported the invasion of Iraq! Now I've heard everything.

Next you'll be justifiying bulldozers running over people and the like.

(It's just annoying the way you state your opinions as fact.)

John Hancock

WMD? Thought this thread was al-Qaeda. Up to your standard away from the less defensible to something obvious. It gets real old Loren.

Martin

Loren Pechtel

The thread title is WMD in Iran.

Hubble head

Martin, I thought most Saudi's were wahhabbi(sp?) and Sunni's and Shia's were a minority.

If most Al-Queda's were Saudi and lead by a Saudi who is part of a family that runs Saudi's version of Bectel and Halliburton combined, then would it not imply that Al-queada is mostly wahhibbi? I really don't know myself.

I suspect that Al-queda is not really that religious at the top - they just use it like others have used religion to enlist gullible men to fight wars.

Once we delve into Iran it could become apparent that there are a lot of unconnected terrorist groups out there under various sects of Islam all adding credit to and fear from al queda but not having anything to do woith al-queda other than hating the west.