Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   US intelligence analysts being shifted away from al Qaeda to Iran. This might just be a repeat of 2002   (npr.org) divider line 14
    More: Scary, al-Qaeda, Iran, United States, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Director Robert Mueller, New America Foundation, state-sponsored terrorisms, Philip Mudd  
•       •       •

4248 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2012 at 12:48 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-03-27 01:26:15 PM  
2 votes:

farkityfarker: The US war machine needs wars. Peace does not produce profit.


You obviously aren't old enough to remember the 90's.
2012-03-27 10:30:29 PM  
1 votes:
farking shiat. i swear they're going to trot out the 'mobile biological nuclear warfare units' pony and the stupid shiat americans are going to lap it up... again.

i40.tinypic.com
2012-03-27 05:12:25 PM  
1 votes:

doyner: That said, more intel on Iran is a good thing. It could help inform a more realistic policy.


Any intel we have will be sifted for stuff that can be used or twisted into a casus belli for when politics allows. Whether or not we go to war with Iran will have little to do with the actual facts on the ground.
2012-03-27 05:06:41 PM  
1 votes:
In 2002 Al-Qaida was still capable of Madrid, London, etc. Today...well, dude, we just don't know.

Iran's nukes, OTOH, have 10 more years of development under their belts...at what rate? Well, dude, we just don't know.

That said, more intel on Iran is a good thing. It could help inform a more realistic policy.
2012-03-27 04:20:44 PM  
1 votes:

Splinshints: Maybe, but unlike 2002 at least I can see how this actually might make some measure of sense. Iran is still a sovereign nation with a sizable military and ties to terror groups. They've engaged in direct terrorism and indirect funding of terrorists and they've been openly hostile since the invasion of Iraq set them on edge. They've been repeatedly accused across two administrations of directly assisting insurgents in Iraq against U.S. ground forces and they continue to act belligerently toward Israel.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a well-contained nation with no meaningful ties to terror groups until after we went in, busted up the place and left the front door wide open for ever scofflaw and scoundrel in the neighborhood to come in and set up shop in a largely lawless and open frontier.

So, yea... not really comparable. One was a playground for and idiot Texan to play "army man" in and the other actually could pose a threat. I don't know if this is a smart move or not, but at least there are reasons to believe that focusing more closely on Iran could make sense, something that no honest and intelligent person could say about Iraq in 2002.


If you thought Iraq was a clusterfark, Iran is going to be even worse. The youth there is actually pretty pro-west, which makes a war there kind of a retarded idea.
2012-03-27 01:57:02 PM  
1 votes:
The US is going to have troops on the ground in every oil producing Middle East country.
2012-03-27 01:50:58 PM  
1 votes:
Y'know, I pointed out to my social studies teacher about three years ago that this was going to happen again. I was pretty close too: we want to continue war due to money, easiest way is to ensure instability in the Middle East (coincidentally preventing them from ganging up on israel), which is why we decided to put our boys in Afghanistan (despite what history has shown us). If you look @ Afghanistan on the map, it's in the absolute perfect position to stage a land based offensive.

It seems crazy but it feels inevitable. We've set up all of our pieces on the board, we just need an excuse.

What I would like to see would be troop reduction in Afghanistan to prove my theory wrong, though they could simply be moved to nearby bases and theoretically be increasing reserves for an assault.

We have the means and the premediation. We just don't have the appropriate motive yet.

I hope we don't find one, because reinvesting our "defense" budget domestically into infrastructure, medicine, education and science would be excellent for patching up our wounds back home. It wouldn't be making government any larger, merely move it around.

I would certainly love to see the day that everyone has access to broadband, that I don't have to worry about a bridge collapsing, that I can have a conversation with people about higher level scientific concepts and not watch their eyes glaze over, but instead brighten.

Its a thought. I hope I'm not the only one who prefers engineering tools of societal creation instead of physical destruction.
2012-03-27 01:38:49 PM  
1 votes:
Hopefully more intelligence will figure out that they're mostly bluster. They have no desire to be wiped from the map, which is what would happen if they bombed Israel. Seriously, I see no sane reason (They can't all be crazy. Can they?) that they would attack Israel. Undermine them as often as possible? Sure, they'll do everything they can to fark with them, but they wouldn't waste a nuke on them. This is good. I prefer more eyes on Iran.
2012-03-27 01:26:41 PM  
1 votes:
I blame Bush.

/am I doing it right?
2012-03-27 01:24:26 PM  
1 votes:
Not only is Al Qaeda less of a threat these days (if only because we're not turning a blind eye to nations who aid and abet them) but our response to 'terror' was wildly disproportionate in the first place.

I'd say intelligence, legislation and law enforcement could move quite a bit of their focus away from terrorism before there's any reason to worry that we're increasing our risk.
2012-03-27 01:08:32 PM  
1 votes:
yellow cake!
smoking gun into a mushroom cloud!
mobile weapons labs!
drone airforce!
centrifuges!
WMDs!


We just went through this bullshiat but there will be plenty of real merkins that will eat up the next batch of lies.
2012-03-27 01:01:47 PM  
1 votes:
Maybe, but unlike 2002 at least I can see how this actually might make some measure of sense. Iran is still a sovereign nation with a sizable military and ties to terror groups. They've engaged in direct terrorism and indirect funding of terrorists and they've been openly hostile since the invasion of Iraq set them on edge. They've been repeatedly accused across two administrations of directly assisting insurgents in Iraq against U.S. ground forces and they continue to act belligerently toward Israel.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a well-contained nation with no meaningful ties to terror groups until after we went in, busted up the place and left the front door wide open for ever scofflaw and scoundrel in the neighborhood to come in and set up shop in a largely lawless and open frontier.

So, yea... not really comparable. One was a playground for and idiot Texan to play "army man" in and the other actually could pose a threat. I don't know if this is a smart move or not, but at least there are reasons to believe that focusing more closely on Iran could make sense, something that no honest and intelligent person could say about Iraq in 2002.
2012-03-27 12:55:36 PM  
1 votes:
The US war machine needs wars. Peace does not produce profit.
2012-03-27 11:26:16 AM  
1 votes:
Right, because 2012 Al Qaeda is identical to 2002 Al Qaeda.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report