Iran - CIA Spy Speaks Out

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by kawaishi

History is shown that we cannot disengage ourselves from the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by trvlr

Recent history shows that we have spent so much effort projecting power that we've lost our economic hegemony and suffered an education ranking free fall....

I think it is more appropriate to say that many historians have argued these points rather than history has shown these points to be "true." MOO, too many arguments these days that begin with "History shows..." would not survive first contact with a decently stocked public library.

(FWIW/IMO, the only "lesson of history" is that there are no "lessons of history" other than what we construct.)

Originally Posted by kawaishi

It is in our own best interest to have a hand in helping nations or organizations that can help promote stability and peace. If we do not have an active role in regional events around the world there are plenty of anti-US factions that will happily fill the void. We're not saving everyone else so much as saving ourselves by helping others.

I may be misreading your post, but as written, it reminds me too much of the zero sum gamesmanship that too often informed too many aspects of American national security policy during the Cold War. The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. Stability and peace can come from an iron fist.

Originally Posted by trvlr

The reason I am so defense centric is because politically, it is far easier to start a war.

I respectfully disagree with this thumbnail of American military and diplomatic history. If one runs down the list of America's wars, overt combat operations have begun only after prolonged political debate and diplomatic maneuvering. The lone exception would be the Second Gulf War (Operation DESERT STORM).

[Pete]

Originally Posted by trvlr

.......I feel that we need to let other regions start taking the lions share of their own defense while we distance ourselves from our economic rivals. .......

So I take it you believe we should pull out of NATO?

After all, there is no USSR anymore. Nothing to fear from the East.

NATO is an interesting subject. Has it's time come and gone. Will it's time come again? Is it even needed? Does everyone pull their weight? Can everyone assist in force projection? Oh, wait, NATO don't do that - it's a European thing. Should a country's command input be based on troop input?

Think of all the jobs we could create around military bases in the US if we pulled all the troops out of Europe. All those military paychecks being poured into local communities.

If all you think about is money it's an easy choice.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pete

So I take it you believe we should pull out of NATO?

After all, there is no USSR anymore. Nothing to fear from the East.

NATO is an interesting subject. Has it's time come and gone. Will it's time come again? Is it even needed?

<<SNIP>>

IMO, as long as there's a Russia, there will be a need for NATO. YMMV.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I respectfully disagree with this thumbnail of American military and diplomatic history. If one runs down the list of America's wars, overt combat operations have begun only after prolonged political debate and diplomatic maneuvering. The lone exception would be the Second Gulf War (Operation DESERT STORM).

In context I meant that compared to overhauling Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security/Unemployment/Welfare it is far easier to start a war.

Originally Posted by Pete

So I take it you believe we should pull out of NATO?

NATO is an interesting subject. Has it's time come and gone. Will it's time come again? Is it even needed? Does everyone pull their weight? Can everyone assist in force projection? Oh, wait, NATO don't do that - it's a European thing. Should a country's command input be based on troop input?

If all you think about is money it's an easy choice.

I think we should stay with NATO. That being said, other nations have no problem taking a backseat when their own defense is on the line. OEF for example has led to strikes on terrorist cells that have planned to hit targets all across continental Europe. Yet most of those countries continue to do little to nothing to aid the war effort. I assume that the same thing would happen in Iran.

As I've said before, it's easiest to talk about money. If we did hit Iran, then we would IMO need to spend as much as necessary to make sure we achieve our goals their. I just hate to see all of these countries squatting under the freedoms we constantly provide them.

If I were in the Israeli military I'd be ecstatic when I saw the American military rolling into Iran. Less work for me. Their hundreds of billions, not mine. And most importantly, their blood, not mine.

[trvlr]

Bottom line for me.

If the Iranian populous doesn't care enough about its own 'freedoms' to conduct a popular uprising through voting and probably "other means" then I don't care enough to deploy to that place to save them.

If the Israelis feel comfortable enough with a nuclear weapon ready Iran to not attack, then I don't think we need to attack Iran to save Israel.

Of course if orders come down then that's exactly what I'll do, to the best of my ability.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by trvlr

In context I meant that compared to overhauling Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security/Unemployment/Welfare it is far easier to start a war.

Then what accounts for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the Clinton Administration's foot dragging over Iraq?

Why, in 2008, did a majority of voters, in their infinite wisdom, vote for a candidate who wanted to overhaul vast segments of American public policy while demonstrating a galling disinterest in national security policy?

Originally Posted by trvlr

I think we should stay with NATO. That being said, other nations have no problem taking a backseat when their own defense is on the line.

When has this statement ever not characterized the politics and diplomacy of coalition warfare?

Originally Posted by trvlr

OEF for example has led to strikes on terrorist cells that have planned to hit targets all across continental Europe. Yet most of those countries continue to do little to nothing to aid the war effort.

How does one know this? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Originally Posted by trvlr

I just hate to see all of these countries squatting under the freedoms we constantly provide them.

FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Trvir

If the Iranian populous doesn't care enough about its own 'freedoms' to conduct a popular uprising through voting and probably "other means" then I don't care enough to deploy to that place to save them.

I agree with this in philosophy, however pragmatically as the hegemon we are incented to maintain the geopolitical status quo to our advantage. Or realistically in short if it's a big enough mess ultimately America will have to get involved to protect her interests. Isolationism has been a costly policy time and time again. IMHO the key words here are American interests, we are not crusaders. For example the genocide in Darfur is horrible, we are not there because there isn't sufficient American interest, yet if they as rumored begin harboring AQ cells we should get involved quickly. The notion the populations of Afghanistan, Iran, and Mexico should all deal with their own respective threats is sound, however in reality the Taliban, Ahmadinejad, and the Cartels respectively rule those countries, if their populations can't deal with this, and frankly it doesn't seem they can, the threat to America warrants our intervention, the questions are only when, how, and at what cost. No question we have to keep a close eye on our friends in Pakistan as well.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history.

To the first:

"Drone attacks 'linked' to suspected Europe terror plot"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11481733

That's the latest example, but if we go back to the OEF invasion, one of ISAF's rallying cries was that the coalition was formed in order to prevent Al Qaeda attacks on their own countries.

According to most of our intelligence officials, Al Qaeda is the worlds major terrorist threat. One of Al Qaeda's goals is to attack the Western influence. One can then assume that as we attack Al Qaeda cells we are preventing them from attacking "Western" nations. These are broad strokes, but certainly not complete fallacy as you imply with "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

"FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history."

Understandable, but if you count the last 20 years as contemporary history we've done more for democracy and humanitarian aid around the world than almost all the NATO countries and Israel combined.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by trvlr

To the first:

"Drone attacks 'linked' to suspected Europe terror plot"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11481733

That's the latest example, but if we go back to the OEF invasion, one of ISAF's rallying cries was that the coalition was formed in order to prevent Al Qaeda attacks on their own countries.

According to most of our intelligence officials, Al Qaeda is the worlds major terrorist threat. One of Al Qaeda's goals is to attack the Western influence. One can then assume that as we attack Al Qaeda cells we are preventing them from attacking "Western" nations. These are broad strokes, but certainly not complete fallacy as you imply with "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

"FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history."

Understandable, but if you count the last 20 years as contemporary history we've done more for democracy and humanitarian aid around the world than almost all the NATO countries and Israel combined.

T--

We'll be long gone before future generations of eggheads can find out "what really happened" during GWOT. I'm of the belief that many of our allies who appear not to be doing their share of the 'heavy lifting' are contributing 'off the books.' Domestic politics drive issues of diplomacy and war. Many of our European partners simply could not build the level of consensus necessary to do more out in the open. (Just my $0.02.)

As for the balance sheet of contemporary history (which I would date from the end of the Second World War to the present), I don't know if score keeping does more harm than good. If we're going to build the kind of rapport we need to get others to do more, might our interests be better served if we enable them to help in ways they can rather than just in the ways we think they should?

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

T--

We'll be long gone before future generations of eggheads can find out "what really happened" during GWOT. I'm of the belief that many of our allies who appear not to be doing their share of the 'heavy lifting' are contributing 'off the books.' Domestic politics drive issues of diplomacy and war. Many of our European partners simply could not build the level of consensus necessary to do more out in the open. (Just my $0.02.)

As for the balance sheet of contemporary history (which I would date from the end of the Second World War to the present), I don't know if score keeping does more harm than good. If we're going to build the kind of rapport we need to get others to do more, might our interests be better served if we enable them to help in ways they can rather than just in the ways we think they should?

Agreed.

[Richard]

Operation Enduring Freedom: Foreign Pledges of Military & Intelligence Support

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf

Coalition Countries

http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/

ISAF Coalition Countries

http://www.centcom.mil/isaf-placemat

And so it goes...

Richard

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Pete

Since you talk of larg numbers and don't think we spend enough on folks at home look here -

Defense spending is for the folks at home.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Defense spending is for the folks at home.

True but most don't think it's so unless they can buy something with it.

[incarcerated]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Iran Loads Fuel Into First Nuclear Reactor

MIDDLE EAST NEWS
OCTOBER 26, 2010, 3:24 A.M. ET
Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran—Iran began loading fuel into the core of its first nuclear power plant on Tuesday, moving closer to the start-up of a facility that the U.S. once hoped to stop over fears of Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Iranian and Russian engineers started moving nuclear fuel into the main reactor building in August but a reported leak in a storage pool delayed injection of the fuel into the reactor.

"Fuel injection into the core of the reactor has begun," the state television announced....

At the plant's inauguration on Aug. 21, Iran's Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi had said loading the fuel into the reactor core would take place over two weeks and the plant would then produce electricity two months later in November. Earlier this month, he said that the start up was postponed because of a small leak. Originally there had been speculation that a computer worm found on the laptops of several plant employees might have been behind the delay.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by incarcerated

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Iran Loads Fuel Into First Nuclear Reactor

MIDDLE EAST NEWS
OCTOBER 26, 2010, 3:24 A.M. ET
Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran—Iran began loading fuel into the core of its first nuclear power plant on Tuesday, moving closer to the start-up of a facility that the U.S. once hoped to stop over fears of Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Iranian and Russian engineers started moving nuclear fuel into the main reactor building in August but a reported leak in a storage pool delayed injection of the fuel into the reactor.

"Fuel injection into the core of the reactor has begun," the state television announced....

At the plant's inauguration on Aug. 21, Iran's Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi had said loading the fuel into the reactor core would take place over two weeks and the plant would then produce electricity two months later in November. Earlier this month, he said that the start up was postponed because of a small leak. Originally there had been speculation that a computer worm found on the laptops of several plant employees might have been behind the delay.

I'll give it less than a year before Israel pulls the plug on this!...........
Lets see how close the "old fart" will be on their eventually putting an end to Iran's nuclear power plant ambitions............

Big Teddy