| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 11:53:03 AM |
It signals to me that Washington might be pulling it's head out of it's rear.
Saddam Hussien should have been taken out through covert operations by a special tactics team (assassinated). Would have saved alot of lives, time, and money.
I agree. The hubris and the "ready, fire, aim" approach to planning the war in Iraq are almost criminal in my books.
More on Iran from Hersh's employer, the New Yorker magazine:
Test Marketing
If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington. Rubin can’t confirm his friend’s story; neither can I. But it’s worth a heads-up:
They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”
True? I don’t know. Plausible? Absolutely. It follows the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led to the Iraq war. The President’s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of bellicose lately, warning of “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” And the Iranian government’s behavior—detaining British servicemen and arresting American passport holders, pushing ahead with uranium enrichment, and, by many reliable accounts, increasing its funding and training for anti-American militias in Iraq—seems intentionally provocative. Perhaps President Ahmedinejad and the mullahs feel that they win either way: they humiliate the superpower if it doesn’t take the bait, and they shore up their deeply unpopular regime at home if it does. Preëmptive war requires calculations (and, often, miscalculations) on two sides, not just one, as Saddam learned in 2003. When tensions are this high between two countries and powerful factions in both act as if hostilities are in their interest, war is likely to follow.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/08/if-there-were-a.html | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 12:06:49 PM | What moral right have we to assinate a foreign leader when we have supported murderous Thugs repressing their own populace for decades.....even Saddam himself?
& what would your reaction be if a foreign power took out the US President in the interest of economics or World Peace?
How the heck to people's mindset change from hating the schoolyard bully of their youth to the might makes right foolsihness that prevails today? | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 12:41:18 PM | Given the choice to go to war and potentially kill hundreds of thousand or use black ops teams to take out a foreign leader, I would prefer the latter. If someone had killed Hitler in 1938, would the world be a better place? In my books, definitely. Millions of people lost their lives because of a madman.
Previous decisions to support the lesser of many evils, like Hussein, shouldn't constrain current policy decisions. You can argue that a given nation does or does not have a moral right to do this or that, but such arguments depend on your perspective and your values. Ultimately, that's a "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" type of question.
Leaders have to decide when and how to react to various threats, and you'll never get everyone to agree on the merits of any given plan of action. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 12:58:03 PM | I agree, the ideal solution would be to stop hypocrisy and let other nations do what other nations do.
The idea he had was that an assassination would cost under a hundred lives on both sides. The war has cost alot more than that. If we for some reason have to get rid of a foreign government, assassination might be a better option than all out war. The problem with assassination though is that we don't get to hand pick who comes to power next. Although, we've shown that we do a pretty crappy job hand picking people anyway. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 1:28:54 PM | | sounds like more lies buy George bush. we all remember the lies about Iraq, then gas will be 20 dollars a gallon. great move bush. what will you do for an on core. what right does USA have to tell Iran they cant have nukes. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 1:48:40 PM | Why would anyone believe anything that Hersch writes? He is a liberal leftist that has his own doped up agenda.
The last time he was right was in 1972. The guy has a drinking problem and will print anything.
I wouldn't waste too much time on his drivel. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 3:33:40 PM | iam...Hirsh broke Abu Ghraib so there is just one recent example of where he got it right. His press credentials are far better than your average mainstream journalist. Your attacks on him say more about your credibility than his. Let's see "doped up", "liberal leftist" "drinking problem"... enough said ("don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll"). Sorry, off topic, but not totally as Hirsh's credibility speaks of the credibility of the story. For those of us who paid attention in the lead up to the Iraq war and weren't in line with the neo-con agenda, the outrageousness of that war was evident. So too is the plan for Iran.
Really, if we are going to advocate taking out dangerous leaders we'd better be careful what we condone. There are those who would have used such tactics gladly on us in the past 7 years if they could have (and many Americans would have breathed a sigh of relief and felt the burgeoning hope for a return to democratic rule at home). I wouldn't condone it there or here, make no mistake about it, but I'm just saying we shouldn't be surprised if our actions blow back and hit us in the face. If we attack Iran in an overt way I would predict an increase in terrorist attacks and more efforts in the U.S. Do we really want that? | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 3:40:03 PM | Investigative reporting is inherently more risky than more plan vanilla media coverage. As the stakes get higher, people don't want to talk or, if you're Deep Throat, would only meet in parking garages in the middle of the night.
It becomes more difficult to know who to trust and what motives may be driving them to talk. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 3:44:02 PM | With all respect - Hirsch did not break Abu Garib - He was recently arrested for DUI. He has published many supposed "exposee'" articles that have been 100% unadulterated BS.
He is still living off of his 1970's Mai Lai Massacre reporting, the last truth that he reported. His articles quote no sources directly and use the typical vague references to sources that can never be accountable.
If you choose to believe reporting like this fine. I stopped trusting non sense like this. I saw first hand how reporters like Hirsch concoct their lies.
BTW - what was so bad about Abu Garib anyway?
I served in the Middle East - what went on their is childs play. Why don't people like Hirsch become enraged when Americans are beheaded by Muslims?
I dont get it! | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/2/2008 8:39:29 PM | ^^ What was so bad about Abu Ghraib? Because America has traditionally liked to hold itself to slightly higher standards as far as upholding due process, not engaging in torture or state-sponsored terrorism, and so forth ......unlike the Middle East (Israel included). Granted it's a rough neighborhood down there, to say the least. But if a nation is going to be the remaining world superpower, and tout itself as being some kind of beacon of human rights, due process, etc, then it is very important that that nation also have an alert and aggressive (and relatively free) media that goes after like pit bulls atrocities such as AbuGhraib, and constantly stays after the 'powers that be' regarding the legality of detentions in places like Guantanamo Bay, etc.
And who says no one gets enraged when they see people beheaded by terrorists?? Did you question Hersch and find out that this does not bother him?? Obviously it's disgusting beyond words when that has happened and to top it off been videotaped and put on the Internet. But that should basically go without saying. Anyone who's not a total sociopath would get upset seeing that. America holds itself to a far higher standard (ideally) than Middle Eastern nations (again, Israel included) and of course holds itself to a far higher standard than terrorists ; so the level they all may descend to with their behaviours should not affect America nor should it somehow sanction America's likewise behaving in similar fashion. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 6:38:54 AM |
BTW - what was so bad about Abu Garib anyway? ... I served in the Middle East - what went on their is childs play.
Yes you 'served' as a member of the IDF ... so I guess that we might understand that you 'don't get' what was so bad about Abu Ghraib ... and yes from that perspective I suppose that human degradation and torture is not 'so bad' ... Israelis do such daily, it's their standard operating procedure.
If you choose to believe reporting like this fine. I stopped trusting non sense like this. I saw first hand how reporters like Hirsch concoct their lies.
Just as most others in the world have stopped trusting or believing Israel's nonsense ... as we have all witnessed first hand how they concoct their lies.
Why don't people like Hirsch become enraged when Americans are beheaded by Muslims?
Perhaps it is not in his nature to become 'enraged' ... perhaps he approaches these things dispassionately (and regrettably) by a careful examination of the facts ... besides the 'beheadings' are the tool of the Sunni branch of Islam characterized by Wahabism, and perhaps he understands what has led to, nurtured and fed the beast, that perversion of Islam, that fanaticism that Wahabism has become. Perhaps he drinks in recognition of these facts.
I dont get it!
Yeah .. you don't.
The Covert Ops that we are now employing against Iran includes the funding and training of 'dissident groups' (a camouflaging euphemism) ... that by our own definition are classified as terrorist groups ... qualifies the US as a State Sponsor of Terror ... not that that is at all surprising to most of the folks in the Mideast, to the Palestinians nor the Iranians, as they been the unfortunate victims of US state sponsored terrorism for generations.
Reporting these facts ... our use of Terror against Iran ... to curb Iranian 'nuclear ambitions' (another euphemism) ... reveals to the American people the complete hypocrisy of our policies in the Mideast, and the hypocrisy of our leaders regarding Iran, and just as Abu Ghraib did, it illustrates and lays bare our hypocrisy in the Global War on Terror.
How we might stop this now run-away train?
I think that thoughtful people of conscience should be demonstrating at Jewish Community centers and outside of Synagogues all across the US ... to let the Jewish community know that we the American people do not want Israel or the US to attack Iran and that we want this matter settled peacefully.
caw | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 7:07:37 AM |
Given the choice to go to war and potentially kill hundreds of thousand or use black ops teams to take out a foreign leader, I would prefer the latter. If someone had killed Hitler in 1938, would the world be a better place? In my books, definitely. Millions of people lost their lives because of a madman.
I had to give that a double take. If by 'black ops' you mean unaccountable operations designed to kill other humans in other countries so we can appropriate their resources for our benefit, That would be premeditated murder. Hitler just spewed the rhetoric the brownshirts wanted to hear and and they admired his unbounded yet unwieldy right winged energy. and here, all the time he was just a paranoid speed freak.
Even so, are you advocating even though we are supposed to believe in a democratic system, we can just shoot leaders we don't like? Or pay to have someone else shoot leaders we don't like? | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:30:13 PM | If by 'black ops' you mean unaccountable operations designed to kill other humans in other countries so we can appropriate their resources for our benefit, That would be premeditated murder. Hitler just spewed the rhetoric the brownshirts wanted to hear
Other than the appropriation of other nations' resources, I'm fine with targeting one leader rather than waging a full-scale war with numerous casualties. Do you know how many people died during WWII? Estimates are in the range of 60 million. I would have gladly pulled the trigger if I could have ridden the globe of Hitler before the madness really took hold.
Why any sane person not want to declare war on one person, a Hitler or Hussein, rather than start a war in which numerous civilians and military personnel would die?
You seem to be splitting moral hairs. Is it the premeditated part? Yes, the identity of your target for assassination is a specific person , but that seems relatively trivial. After all, if you start a war, you know that there almost certainly will be casualties. Do you think Harry Truman was surprised to learn that there were casualties after the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Of course not. The deaths of civilians are premeditated even if the specific identities of those who will be killed are not known at the beginning of a conflict.
As for Hitler just feeding the Brownshirts what they wanted to hear, I think you need to go back and re-learn your history. Hitler was whipping up support for his agenda for years. He was the driving force behind the Nazi movement and the Final Solution. Talk to a Holocaust survivor, as I have, if you think Hitler was just another politician telling people what they want to hear. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 4:46:18 PM | There are a few problems with using black ops to try and assassinate world leaders.
1. That makes it ok for other nations to do the same to us and to others, thus making all positions of power merely targets destabilizing any notion of security in power. All leaders would logically have to retreat and become paranoid. And clearly, having paranoid freaks for leaders who are completely segregated from the people they govern must be a good thing.
2. It amounts to terrorism. Literally, it is exactly terrorism. However, it would also be stepping it up a notch because right now terrorists generally avoid anyone too high up because they need to keep order and scare the populous. They need to have a leader to intimidate. But if it becomes ok to just have a revolving door of leaders worldwide, why not kill until you finally get one you like.
3. No amount of killing leaders will defeat a cell-based organization. A common myth perpetuated by old world governments (i.e. governments of countries) is that their is a hierarchy to kill leaders from. Yes, they have figure heads that are used as motivational tools. Yes, they also have a handful of people who coordinate more than others do. However, the members of individuals cells only know members of their own cell, and possibly one member in another cell. Each cell plans and coordinates its own terrorist activities. That means that no matter how many "leaders," planners, or organizers we take out, it's barely more meaningful than killing an average member.
4. Even if we used this strategy only against nations, it would result in us killing more than just the current leader. Killing a leader we dislike will probably lead to another leader we don't like coming into power. Even if we kill enough that we find one we do like, what's to stop a former ally of theirs to killing the new one? Beyond that, what if we make a mistake and kill someone who wasn't doing anything wrong. Did you ever see the movie minority report? It turns out that people make mistakes. Just because you think or have evidence that someone is doing wrong, doesn't mean they are. Did Iraq have any WMDs?
Also, Goodwin's law. Invoking Hitler on an internet forum in order to win an argument automatically closes the forum and ends the argument. Whoever made the comparison to Hitler loses. | |
|
| |
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 7:07:07 PM | 1. That makes it ok for other nations to do the same to us and to others
The comparison was between taking out a foreign leader and going to war with that nation. By your logic, launching a war against a foreign government would make it OK for them to do the same to your country. Is that preferable? Of course it isn't.
2. It amounts to terrorism. Literally, it is exactly terrorism.
The comparison was between taking out a foreign leader and going to war with that nation. Why would assasination of one person be terrorism but launching a war wouldn't be?
3. No amount of killing leaders will defeat a cell-based organization.
The comparison was between taking out a foreign leader and going to war with that nation. Your refuting a point I never made.
4. Even if we used this strategy only against nations, it would result in us killing more than just the current leader.
The comparison was between taking out a foreign leader and going to war with that nation. Killing a national leader may or may not result in a similar person coming to power. There's nothing to say this has to happen. The ability to make a positive change would be part of the calculation.
As for Godwin's Law, which is only an adage, not a natural law, it is supposed to apply to an inordinate comparison to Hitler from what I understand. If I compared Bush to Hitler, some might say Godwin's Law applies but that is not what I did. I compared the assassination of Hitler with the carnage that was the result of his reign. That's a completely reasonable question. Would we be better off if Hitler had been taken out before the beginning of WWII? We'll never know for sure, but I would say we probably would be. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 7:27:26 PM |
And who says no one gets enraged when they see people beheaded by terrorists?? Did you question Hersch and find out that this does not bother him?? Obviously it's disgusting beyond words when that has happened and to top it off been videotaped and put on the Internet. But that should basically go without saying. Anyone who's not a total sociopath would get upset seeing that. America holds itself to a far higher standard (ideally) than Middle Eastern nations (again, Israel included) and of course holds itself to a far higher standard than terrorists ; so the level they all may descend to with their behaviours should not affect America nor should it somehow sanction America's likewise behaving in similar fashion.
Ahem Ahem - Hirsch is a so called journalist. All one has to do to test his sympathies is review what he writes about. So genius - can you show me anything this doped up liberal has written in defense of Americans being abused by Muslim terrorists. I have no reason to speak with a whack job like him -
And =- how about pointing out anything freakin thing that he has written about in recent times that is actually true and revealing.
The EYE DEAR that the USA would assassinate Ahmadenijihad is so far out that it is amusing listening to the bong breathers discuss it whiletrying to act intelligent. I just wonder if your Chairman Mao posters have yellowed yet.
I do not expect any anti semetic desktop jockeys that have never put anything more than their little finger nails at risk to understand what goes on in the trenches.
So type away - and PULEASE be careful not to mess up your manicure~!
| |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/3/2008 9:17:55 PM | Yes you 'served' as a member of the IDF ... so I guess that we might understand that you 'don't get' what was so bad about Abu Ghraib ... and yes from that perspective I suppose that human degradation and torture is not 'so bad' ... Israelis do such daily, it's their standard operating procedure. Not to get off topic but I think that Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident that ran 24/7 on MSM so it appeared that this was common practice by all military personnel.. in defense of the military these were a few bad apples who made the news and in turn made the entire hard working military look bad.. now what this has to do with Covert Ops I don't know but I do know that IF I were a Covert Op I would not want my mission to be broadcast all over the world. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 3:06:57 AM |
Other than the appropriation of other nations' resources, I'm fine with targeting one leader rather than waging a full-scale war with numerous casualties. Do you know how many people died during WWII? Estimates are in the range of 60 million. I would have gladly pulled the trigger if I could have ridden the globe of Hitler before the madness really took hold.
So the lead interrogator for Saddam has stated Saddam did not have any WMDs, it was the ranting of a sick paranoid man who believed by keeping up the ruse of having WMD, he could keep the Iranians from attacking his country.
So this still would be murder of of a man we only thought had WMD we had no proof and became cop, judge and jury.
When countries agree that clandestine operations are acceptable to commit on foreigners, foreigners will naturally want to reciprocate and those that accept committing the crimes should expect clandestine operations to be committed on them.
Hitler was voted into office before deciding to change the established laws, which sounds like what bush did too, created his own internal intelligence operation separate from the army and police intelligence unit and had them commit illegal acts in countries he was about to invade as well as monitor their communications within Germany. Kind of like bush's interpretation of the FISA rules.
There was an economic slump in Germany at the time and the brownshirt bigots blamed it on foreigners and religious groups they didn't like. It was easy for hitler to talk them into blaming and treating other humans as cattle. If hitler didn't do it, someone else would have done it because speed heads are crazy and the doctors of the time were prescribing massive amounts of speed to hitler. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 4:12:18 AM |
The comparison was between taking out a foreign leader and going to war with that nation. Why would assasination of one person be terrorism but launching a war wouldn't be?
Getting into a foreign country and killing it's leader is and act of war. So committing an act of war is not really wise if you are trying to prevent a war.
The US has been quite successful at covert ops for quite a while now and that is one of the reasons bin laden used a covert op on 9/11.
As far as taking out saddam with a covert op? Bush didn't like that idea because he would not have been able to take over the oil that way.
Mainly the purpose of the iranian covert ops is to generate news for the americans to justify starting a war with just like in Iraq. When bush can't get news to justify his war, he just makes it up.
Not to get off topic but I think that Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident that ran 24/7 on MSM so it appeared that this was common practice by all military personnel.. in defense of the military these were a few bad apples who made the news and in turn made the entire hard working military look bad.. now what this has to do with Covert Ops I don't know but I do know that IF I were a Covert Op I would not want my mission to be broadcast all over the world.
Right; I'm sure the military is going to tell us about all their illegal acts voluntarily.
As far as being a covert op and having your mission broadcast all over the world, how do you think Valerie Plame feels about having her covert mission suddenly exposed by the executives . She worked with many other people that were working in Africa to make sure the bad guys couldn't get the yellow cake needed to make nuclear weapons.
How do you think that affects the moral of anyone working for legitimate covert intelligence. At any point in time, your neocon executives can throw you and everybody you work with under the bus for a political agenda. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 4:45:47 AM |
Getting into a foreign country and killing it's leader is and act of war. So committing an act of war is not really wise if you are trying to prevent a war.
You seem to be under the impression that leaders act only in accordance with man-made rules. The practical reality is more important than whether something adheres to arbitrary rules.
Killing a national leader might be considered an act of war by some but if it destabilizes a hostile nation and allows the installation of a more favorable government, then that act of war will be an act of war in theory only.
Again, we're comparing assassination of one person with a full-scale war. You are concerned with an assasination being an act of war but not about the alternative that was being discussed, namely launching a war against that same nation. Clearly, launching a war is a little more serious than a coup. Or would you not consider launching a war to be an act of war? | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:13:10 AM | World War I, was started by an assasination.
Killing a national leader might be considered an act of war by some but if it destabilizes a hostile nation and allows the installation of a more favorable government, then that act of war will be an act of war in theory only.
So, you support the killing of world leaders in order to make a country more favorable towards the US? | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:22:44 AM | I remember watching some documentary about how the CIA use to try to kill Castro, it was really rather comical - like sneaking a hungry shark into his swimming pool..
I certainly hope they've improved their techniques since then :) | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:23:42 AM |
You seem to be under the impression that leaders act only in accordance with man-made rules. The practical reality is more important than whether something adheres to arbitrary rules.
You are justifying anarchy if you don't want your leaders to follow rules.
Killing a national leader might be considered an act of war by some but if it destabilizes a hostile nation and allows the installation of a more favorable government, then that act of war will be an act of war in theory only.
Do you mean like we did in Iran already? The practice of destabilizing countries creates hostility towards those that do the destabilizing. Besides that, we only practice destabilizing countries that have something we want.
Again, we're comparing assassination of one person with a full-scale war. You are concerned with an assasination being an act of war but not about the alternative that was being discussed, namely launching a war against that same nation. Clearly, launching a war is a little more serious than a coup. Or would you not consider launching a war to be an act of war?
I'm trying to point out sending assassins out is a good reason to declare war on those sending them.
Now in Iraq, had someone killed saddam, there probably would have been an unstable situation and a struggle would have caused a civil war. It wouldn't have been a single death but many. In the end, you still have lots of people pi$$ed of at the foreigners that made it happen. | |
|
| An Increase In Covert Ops Against Iran?
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:26:15 AM | As far as being a covert op and having your mission broadcast all over the world, how do you think Valerie Plame feels about having her covert mission suddenly exposed by the executives . She worked with many other people that were working in Africa to make sure the bad guys couldn't get the yellow cake needed to make nuclear weapons.
Broadcasting any Covert mission is wrong to me and we can mostly thank the media for this.. especially reporting something that is going on right now that is even more dangerous for the Covert Ops.
How do you think that affects the moral of anyone working for legitimate covert intelligence. At any point in time, your neocon executives can throw you and everybody you work with under the bus for a political agenda. I think we are supposed to stop using labels such as "neocon" because it really doesn't help the debate at least that's the memo I got. In answer to your question whether the Covert Op is gathering intelligence information OR actually has shoes on the ground it is wrong and 10 times more dangerous for those on the ground performing the Operation. So I'm always disappointed when the media considers this as "news" that we should know. | |
|
Home
login 
