Iran - CIA Spy Speaks Out

[incarcerated]

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.

How do your remarks relate to Iran?
What would you have the U.S. do about Iran?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101703364.html

U.S. says Chinese businesses and banks are bypassing U.N. sanctions against Iran

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 17, 2010; 10:34 PM
The Obama administration has concluded that Chinese firms are helping Iran to improve its missile technology and develop nuclear weapons, and has asked China to stop such activity, a senior U.S. official said....

[MtnGoat]

Not sure how many get these emails.. But I thought this fit in here.. maybe just on the middle east section too..

Some pretty good read.. LINK

Looking to this, seems that Iran is spreading it's tentacles filled with anti-West poison. I like the way President Ahmadinejad said during his visit to Lebanon, he called Lebanon “the university for jihad.”

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Looking to this, seems that Iran is spreading it's tentacles filled with anti-West poison. I like the way President Ahmadinejad said during his visit to Lebanon, he called Lebanon “the university for jihad.”

From Al Jazeera English:

US foes seek “new world order”

Venezuela and Iran denounce US imperialism as they flex their economic muscles by signing a raft of energy deals.
Last Modified: 21 Oct 2010 01:00 GMT
Venezuela and Iran have denounced US imperialism and called for a "new world order", saying they are united in trying to eliminate western dominance in global affairs.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, and visiting Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, were quoted by Iranian media as calling their relationship a "strategic alliance".

"We are united and determined to end the current unjust which dominates the world and replace it with a new world order based on justice," said Ahmadinejad on Wednesday.

"Iran and Venezuela are united to establish a new world order based on humanity and justice.

"We believe that the only result of bullying movements of imperialism all around the world, and especially in Latin America, will be the fast decline of imperial power," Ahmadinejad said at a joint news conference, referring to the United States.

'US military threats'

For his part, Chavez condemned what he called "military attack threats against Iran by some countries".

"We know that they can never thwart the Islamic Revolution," he said.

Chavez said this is a time of "great threats" that make it necessary to swiftly "consolidate strategic alliances in political, economic, technological, energy and social areas", according to the state-run Venezuelan News Agency.

The Venezuelan leader said his government demands respect for Iran's sovereignty and that "those who think they are most powerful and want to impose their will on the world respect Iran".

Earlier the two leaders witnessed the signing of a series of deals focusing on cooperation in areas including oil, natural gas, textiles, trade and public housing.

The agreements signed include pacts for a joint oil shipping company and joint construction of petrochemical plants, as well as Venezuelan participation in the exploitation of Iran's South Pars gas field.

The two sides also agreed to build a refinery in Syria, Iran's main ally in the region.

Iran and Venezuela have over the past five years signed a series of agreements on oil and gas cooperation as the Iranian industry has been hit by pullouts by Western firms in the face of UN and US sanctions.

Chavez's visit is part of an international tour aimed at strengthening Venezuela's economic ties with eastern Europe and the Middle East.

He left Iran late on Wednesday and is due next to Libya and Portugal.

Iran has become the closest Middle East ally to Chavez's government as the left-leaning leader has sought to build international alliances to counter what he sees as US economic and political dominance.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Oh yeah, and there's this:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...105371528.html

Iran Increasing Enriched Uranium Stockpile

20 October 2010
VOA News
Iran's atomic energy chief says his country has increased its enriched uranium stockpile despite international opposition.

Ali Akbar Salehi said Wednesday that Iran now has 30 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, almost double the amount reported in June.

Iran is under four sets of United Nations sanctions for its refusal to stop enriching uranium. Iran says its production is for peaceful needs including for fueling a medical reactor....

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The U.S. projecting power did not lead to it losing its economic hegemony, and I would argue the U.S. still is the economic hegemon.

Your opinion vs mine. There's no real arguing between our two views. To better explain mine I would say the trillions spent in OIF, and the national focus on winning OIF after it started could have been focused elsewhere (EDIT: I'm not saying that after it was started we should have quit early. Rather, that because it was started the manpower and money it required grew exponentially.)

OIF was and is a good example of us projecting. Preemptive war by definition, is a projection of power.

The WTC attacks had a deferential affect on our economy, and I don't ignore that. Yet OEF and OIF were two completely different wars.

Now think of adding serious efforts in Iran to this mix. To truly make sure that their Nuclear capabilities are off the shelf and to completely free there people up to be able to vote like we want, would require more preemptive actions.

I'm saying, what about America?

We could argue that America is still the economic hegemon but we would both have to agree that we're nowhere near where we were in 2004-5-6-7-8. Those aren't just recession years.

I think that illustrates my position on Iran.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by trvlr

................. To better explain mine I would say the trillions spent in OIF, and the national focus on winning OIF after it started could have been focused elsewhere...................

Since the war began how much has the US spent on it?

Since the war began how much has the US given away in foreign aid - military, economic and food?

Since the war began how much has the US spent on internal social programs?

What percentage of the US budget is directed to defense spending?

What percentage of the US budget is directed to social programs?

The above numbers are facts.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by trvlr

Your opinion vs mine. There's no real arguing between our two views. To better explain mine I would say the trillions spent in OIF, and the national focus on winning OIF after it started could have been focused elsewhere (EDIT: I'm not saying that after it was started we should have quit early. Rather, that because it was started the manpower and money it required grew exponentially.)

How many "trillions" do you think we spent in OIF?

TR

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

How many "trillions" do you think we spent in OIF?

TR

At least 2-2.5

These numbers come from me adding the Congressional Budget Offices 09-10 total cost predictions, and there cost estimate for 03-07. Granted, I did a very rough estimate but the number can be found (and crunched correctly) here:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8690&type=0

and here:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/89927.pdf

Fox news, BBC, MSNBC etc reported similar numbers but I had to check it out for myself.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by trvlr

At least 2-2.5

These numbers come from me adding the Congressional Budget Offices 09-10 total cost predictions, and there cost estimate for 03-07. Granted, I did a very rough estimate but the number can be found (and crunched correctly) here:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8690&type=0

and here:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/89927.pdf

Fox news, BBC, MSNBC etc reported similar numbers but I had to check it out for myself.

"Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under the two illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017."

Not what I am seeing from the summary. Less than $1.7 trillion, through 2017, for both OIF and OEF.

TR

[Pete]

Originally Posted by trvlr

.......Fox news, BBC, MSNBC etc reported similar numbers but I had to check it out for myself.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

I know it's wikipedia but it does put all the numbers in one place.

Notice the Mandatory spending and Discretionary spending.

Defense spending is under Discretionary spending and is only $663.7 billion while the rest totals around $717.9 billion.

Now go up to Mandatory Spending - like Social Security $667.95 Billion - like medicare / medicaid $743. billion - and $571 billion in "other mandatory programs".

Seems to me there is plenty of fat to cut before hitting the defense budget.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Not what I am seeing from the summary. Less than $1.7 trillion, through 2017, for both OIF and OEF.

TR

Understood. The latest hard data ended in 2007 and the 08-10 numbers were estimated. They explain that these estimated numbers were based one of two scenarios, (troops reduced to 30,000 by 2010 or 75,000 by 2013) but the first did not happen and the second is still up in the air. It also state that approx 75% of the total sum used up until 2007 went to OIF. A trend that i'm sure has not continued through July 2010 with the "combat roles" supposedly "ending" there.

The paper omits one of the highest costs, private contractors. Bottom line, I rounded very high.

If we round all the way down to 1 trillion from 2003 to OCT 2010, my opinion is that it's a large sum for power projection. I steer clear of talking about the human cost because I and I'm sure many of you have lost compatriots in that theatre.

From a purely political perspective, that's a lot of money. And I can conjecture that to do what this CIA man wants to do in Iran it will cost us far more.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Pete

Seems to me there is plenty of fat to cut before hitting the defense budget.

Gentlemen I'm not sure what we should be cutting I'm just saying that I don't think there is enough extra money to pursue another large endeavor.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by trvlr

Gentlemen I'm not sure what we should be cutting I'm just saying that I don't think there is enough extra money to pursue another large endeavor.

And I have asked you to find out just how we spent in other areas - which you blew off and kept talking.

So I gave you some numbers to solicit a comment from you which you again blew off.

Your "rant" seems to be that power projection - under defense spending, and some money coming from other areas - is breaking the bank. I have shown you that what we spend on defense is a small part of the budget.

It could be said that Social Security is breaking the bank - or Medicare / Medicaid. Does the Department of Education - other than giving rubbers for bananas - do anything worth the billions it costs us?

Think of where we could use the money we spend on dept service.

So is your opinion an opinion - or an informed opinion backed up by facts?

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Pete

And I have asked you to find out just how we spent in other areas - which you blew off and kept talking.

So I gave you some numbers to solicit a comment from you which you again blew off.

Your "rant" seems to be that power projection - under defense spending, and some money coming from other areas - is breaking the bank. I have shown you that what we spend on defense is a small part of the budget.

It could be said that Social Security is breaking the bank - or Medicare / Medicaid. Does the Department of Education - other than giving rubbers for bananas - do anything worth the billions it costs us?

Think of where we could use the money we spend on dept service.

So is your opinion an opinion - or an informed opinion backed up by facts?

Pete, I apologize. It was laziness on my part. My opinion is an informed one.

Total Spent from 2003 (I'm focusing on OIF due to its preemptive nature) until now: Depending on who you ask, from 1-2 trillion. The Reaper proved that I don't have the hard data to say 2 so I'll put it at 1 Trillion.

Foreign Aid Worldwide since 2003: Using the appendix table A-2 of the Congressional Research Services "Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs" (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40213.pdf) I found the 03-08 total approx 168 billion. I could not find official numbers for 09'-OCT10 but the CRS graph in Figure 7 predicts approx 26 billion for 09 and 27 billion for 10. If that holds total foreign aid from 03-10 would be approx. 221 Billion.

I'm not sure what the full extent of "internal social programs" vs "social programs" is. That being said I cannot quantify its cost from 03-10. For purposes of this discussion I'll assume that over 60% of our spending goes towards internal social programs and social programs. You'll have to correct me if I'm to high or low on that.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...et_submissions) Total spending according to those charts and most news organizations from 03-10 is approximately 22 Trillion. 60% of that is 13.2 Trillion.

Defense Spending from 03-10 according to Table 6 of (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34473.pdf) is approximately 4.6 Trillion. 4.6/22 = approximately 21. Making Defense Spending approximately 21% of our budget since 03.

I understand that more money is spent on social programs, we also have to think about how affective our government is at trimming the fat. I would say that former President Bush was the most affective percentage wise, but even he and his congress got bogged down with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The reason I am so defense centric is because politically, it is far easier to start a war. Changing large public policy programs is usually political seppuku. That's why so many politicians have been dancing around the issue for literally decades of their careers.

Defense spending should and will always be high, but that's not to say that we can afford another major operation. I don't trust our current, or follow on Congress to be able to cut spending where it needs to be cut either. (As I said before, I'm really not sure where that is.)

I am sure that we can't afford to do what the author of that article wants to do. We can do it anyway, but I think that would be going against the lesson we should be learning from OIF.

[akv]

Trvir,

We are certainly spending a great deal of money, and odds of Congress getting wisdom are slim. The current economic malaise IMHO will get worse before it gets better, empires can collapse as history has shown, however America has a few inherent advantages over potential economic rivals in addition to our industry, we also have natural resources and perhaps most importantly and overlooked agricultural dominance. If the Third World continues to develop, the "new normal" will see the US own less of the economic pie, though we will likely retain the largest piece for some time. It is very easy to focus on the foibles of our economic policy, while forgetting potential rivals nations are equally error prone with less inherent advantage. IIRC Japan was supposed to pass us in the 1980's, stimulating their economy with cheap loans, this backfired with two lost decades and counting. Both China and India have had impressive economic growth, both have a precarious income gap dilemma, and China like Japan has no natural resources. Russia is a one trick pony, if oil prices increase they are relevant, if not they are in deep Kim Chee, they might be anyway with their declining population. A united Europe has the potential to challenge economically, however they have yet to overcome divisive cultural traditions, and if the riots in response to austerity measures such as working two more years till retirement are any indication, they are going backwards. At the end of the day if push came to shove America can force hyperinflation and use food as a weapon. This would not be good for our economy, but it would devastate the China's of the world. This is not to say we have an excuse for irresponsible fiscal policy, we too will have to pay the piper, but economically if the US sneezes significantly ( along the lines of the great depression) China contracts terminal pneumonia. We are no where close to the crisis we had in the 1930's.

Nuclear proliferation however is the one threat we have limited options of response for. As the hegemon it is very much in our interests to be a spoiling state to retain the status quo. Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and stated intentions towards Israel combined with Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is a deadly pairing which could escalate to our detriment. IMHO dealing with this will be expensive, but not as costly as delaying our response, we can't afford to ignore this. IIRC Albert Einstein's views on nuclear proliferation were the the risks are not linear, the risks of going from 6 nuclear armed states to 12 isn't doubled but geometric.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by akv

Trvir,

We are certainly spending a great deal of money, and odds of Congress getting wisdom are slim. The current economic malaise IMHO will get worse before it gets better, empires can collapse as history has shown, however America has a few inherent advantages over potential economic rivals in addition to our industry, we also have natural resources and perhaps most importantly and overlooked agricultural dominance. If the Third World continues to develop, the "new normal" will see the US own less of the economic pie, though we will likely retain the largest piece for some time. It is very easy to focus on the foibles of our economic policy, while forgetting potential rivals nations are equally error prone with less inherent advantage. IIRC Japan was supposed to pass us in the 1980's, stimulating their economy with cheap loans, this backfired with two lost decades and counting. Both China and India have had impressive economic growth, both have a precarious income gap dilemma, and China like Japan has no natural resources. Russia is a one trick pony, if oil prices increase they are relevant, if not they are in deep Kim Chee, they might be anyway with their declining population. A united Europe has the potential to challenge economically, however they have yet to overcome divisive cultural traditions, and if the riots in response to austerity measures such as working two more years till retirement are any indication, they are going backwards. At the end of the day if push came to shove America can force hyperinflation and use food as a weapon. This would not be good for our economy, but it would devastate the China's of the world. This is not to say we have an excuse for irresponsible fiscal policy, we too will have to pay the piper, but economically if the US sneezes significantly ( along the lines of the great depression) China contracts terminal pneumonia. We are no where close to the crisis we had in the 1930's.

Nuclear proliferation however is the one threat we have limited options of response for. As the hegemon it is very much in our interests to be a spoiling state to retain the status quo. Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and stated intentions towards Israel combined with Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is a deadly pairing which could escalate to our detriment. IMHO dealing with this will be expensive, but not as costly as delaying our response, we can't afford to ignore this. IIRC Albert Einstein's views on nuclear proliferation were the the risks are not linear, the risks of going from 6 nuclear armed states to 12 isn't doubled but geometric.

I agree with your economic views. As for nuclear proliferation, I view Pakistan as the greatest threat. It is by far the most unstable nuclear power. If Iran gets them, and Israel is so inclined, they have more than enough assets to destroy the threat. Why not let them do it? We enable them with our funding anyway right?

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. I understand the fact that time is not our friend, but I highly doubt we'll be in the economic position needed to conduct the operation needed before Iran hits their weapons grade stride.

IMO, OEF should be our main effort until it's a success.