Think Tank Ponders how to Provoke Iran into attacking FRIST...

[revelarts]

Or at least LOOK LIKE they attacked 1st.



“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.

Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

-US foreign policy makers in the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

[CSM]

They do this kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean the ewe ess gummint supports it or has adopted it. Furthermore, what you have pointed out is one of several options/ideas presented.

[revelarts]

They do this kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean the ewe ess gummint supports it or has adopted it. Furthermore, what you have pointed out is one of several options/ideas presented.

doesn't mean we haven't either.


Gulf of Tonkin anyone? Where are dem WMDs? Remember the Main?

[CSM]

doesn't mean we haven't either.


Gulf of Tonkin anyone? Where are dem WMDs? Remember the Main?

Big difference between a think tank writing a paper posing several options and some government agency making a strategic plan and executing same. I guess for some they are one and the same but not for me.

[revelarts]

Big difference between a think tank writing a paper posing several options and some government agency making a strategic plan and executing same. I guess for some they are one and the same but not for me.

think tanks wrote up with Bush/Chenney's plan to the point where some pentagon folks were amazed at exactness of how it was played out. Not such a big difference.

So we don't have to imagine this type of thing happening it does happen. not one in the same but easily can be.

[Little-Acorn]

Big difference between a think tank writing a paper posing several options and some government agency making a strategic plan and executing same. I guess for some they are one and the same but not for me.

Don't bother, SarMajor. If revelarts wants to smear the government with something they haven't done, neither logic nor facts from you will stop him.

[CSM]

All I can say is that 1) things that COULD happen are not necessarily what WILL happen and 2) sometimes hindsight gets awfully blurry dependent upon who is doing the seeing. Finally, 3) just because one is paranoid does not mean no one is out to get them.

[revelarts]

Don't bother, SarMajor. If revelarts wants to smear the government with something they haven't done, neither logic nor facts from you will stop him.
I've heard that Obama really doesn't want to go to war but is grand standing too. That we'll never go to war with iran becuase we can't afford to stop the flow of the oil. I hope that's true.



Nothings happen yet, but plans are on the table. that's alllll i'm pointing out here Acorn.



All I can say is that 1) things that COULD happen are not necessarily what WILL happen and 2) sometimes hindsight gets awfully blurry dependent upon who is doing the seeing. Finally, 3) just because one is paranoid does not mean no one is out to get them.
Agreed.

[avatar4321]

Perhaps they should think of a way to avoid war with them by persuading them to agree with us.

[Gaffer]

Or at least LOOK LIKE they attacked 1st.



“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.

Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

-US foreign policy makers in the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

It's a very long pdf file which, while it looks interesting, I don't want to get into reading at this time. I will make a couple of points. Doesn't anyone actually believe the govt would let speculation like this out? It would be classified and unobtainable if it were actually a CIA or govt study. There's even a disclaimer at the beginning. It's pure speculation and to my mind propaganda put out by Ron Paul and anti war nut cases. The govt seal makes it look authentic. Tom Clancy could turn this into a really good novel.

[Sir Evil]

I've heard that Obama really doesn't want to go to war but is grand standing too. That we'll never go to war with iran becuase we can't afford to stop the flow of the oil. I hope that's true.


Curious, what fears you more... going to war with iran or iran having a nuclear weapon?

[revelarts]

Curious, what fears you more... going to war with iran or iran having a nuclear weapon?

Iran with a nuke doesn't scare me anymore than Pakistan, North Korea and less than China or Russia.

[ConHog]

Iran with a nuke doesn't scare me anymore than Pakistan, North Korea and less than China or Russia.

China and thus North Korea can both be controlled via MADD, so to can Pakistan. Iran doesn't care if they kill everyone in their country as well.

All do pose some threat of allowing terrorists access to the technology though.

[revelarts]

It's a very long pdf file which, while it looks interesting, I don't want to get into reading at this time. I will make a couple of points. Doesn't anyone actually believe the govt would let speculation like this out? It would be classified and unobtainable if it were actually a CIA or govt study. There's even a disclaimer at the beginning. It's pure speculation and to my mind propaganda put out by Ron Paul and anti war nut cases. The govt seal makes it look authentic. Tom Clancy could turn this into a really good novel.

Where do you think Clancy gets his ideas? As far as the gov't letting speculation like this out, well Gingrinch blursts it out similar stuff during debates. But it's not the 1st time. however you've got a point, often things like this do stay secret. Most people don't want to believe it of our gov't anyway so whos looking. But think of all of the attempts on castro's life for instinces then on top of that there was Operation nothwoods a 1960's top secret doc that proposed actions that were denied flatly before congress at the time.

...in his exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage...

I just want to be clear. this type of thing is not only the stuff of novels but real operational plans the U.S. Gov't has to instigate wars based on lies. And we as citizens need to be aware that we have people in gov't willing to follow through on them and not be so eager to believe it when an official claims "we've been attacked" or "they will attack". there are people in and out of the U.S. gov't _(not the WHOLE gov't :rolleyes:)- that want war for various reasons, some reasons they may even believe are justified. And they are willing to lie to the American public to get it done. It's just part of a realitic picture of what we have to consider in any War senerio, jsut trust that our gov't would never do such a thing (but only plan it) is naive.


China and thus North Korea can both be controlled via MADD, so to can Pakistan. Iran doesn't care if they kill everyone in their country as well.

.

people keep saying that but whats your evidence for it. It's just an assertion. any actions that you can point to that they are suicidal? i've pointed out several CIA, State Dept, U.S. military intel personel, and Mosad sources that say they are not suicidal maniacs and not likely to use a nuke against Israel or the U.S. or pass it on to others to do so. one CIA report says they have chemical and i believe bioweapons now and they've yet -in all their maddness- have yet to past it on to terrorist. The CIA source said that the elite Iranian guard has it all under TIGHT lock and key. What evidence have you got to back up you assertion.



All do pose some threat of allowing terrorists access to the technology though
agreed, but not enough to go to war over, and neither is Iran.

[gabosaurus]

What happens in Iran is not our business. We need to keep our noses out and let the nations of the area settle things amongst themselves. And if the entire Middle East is destroyed, all the better.

[ConHog]

What happens in Iran is not our business. We need to keep our noses out and let the nations of the area settle things amongst themselves. And if the entire Middle East is destroyed, all the better.

Read a history book Gabby. Minding our own business in the early 1940s cost millions of lives, AND let the Axis Powers become even stronger before we finally had to confront them which in turn made their defeat that much more costly to us.

And that's totally ignoring the reality that Iran is a sponsor of terror groups and thus likely to give a nuke to some group which would then attempt to use it on us directly.

[Sir Evil]

Iran with a nuke doesn't scare me anymore than Pakistan, North Korea and less than China or Russia.

When iranian president claims a certain country should be wiped off the map you have no concerns if they have nuclear weapons? :laugh:

[Sir Evil]

What happens in Iran is not our business. We need to keep our noses out and let the nations of the area settle things amongst themselves. And if the entire Middle East is destroyed, all the better.

And when that nuclear technology slips into the wrong hands? When you get all growed up you will perhaps be a little less narrow minded..... :bang3:

[gabosaurus]

And when that nuclear technology slips into the wrong hands? When you get all growed up you will perhaps be a little less narrow minded..... :bang3:

It's already in the wrong hands. You have merely decided that some "wrong hands" are worse than others.


When iranian president claims a certain country should be wiped off the map you have no concerns if they have nuclear weapons? :laugh:

India and Pakistan have been threatening to wipe each other off the map for decades. North Korea regularly threatens to wipe us off the map.

I am not saying that Israel should not use force in dealing with Iran. I am merely stating that we shouldn't take sides.

[Sir Evil]

It's already in the wrong hands. You have merely decided that some "wrong hands" are worse than others.



India and Pakistan have been threatening to wipe each other off the map for decades. North Korea regularly threatens to wipe us off the map.

I am not saying that Israel should not use force in dealing with Iran. I am merely stating that we shouldn't take sides.

It's already in the wrong hands but you're not saying that israel shouldn't use force? pakistan and india are playing a game of hypotheticals so when hypothetically israel is the said country to be wiped off the map the world should sit back and assume it's just all talk, hypothetical talk at that?

Do yourself some studying on the topic and understand what the difference currently is between india/pakistan having nuclear power opposed to iran having that power, interesting what you might learn...:rolleyes:

[ConHog]

It's already in the wrong hands but you're not saying that israel shouldn't use force? pakistan and india are playing a game of hypotheticals so when hypothetically israel is the said country to be wiped off the map the world should sit back and assume it's just all talk, hypothetical talk at that?

Do yourself some studying on the topic and understand what the difference currently is between india/pakistan having nuclear power opposed to iran having that power, interesting what you might learn...:rolleyes:

Gabby it is apparent to ANYONE who has read your posts that you are giddy at the thought of Iran obtaining nukes and obliterating Israel, and if Iran has to be destroyed to bring that about, oh well.

The rest of us however would prefer to keep nuclear weapons away from anyone who doesn't already have them and a proven record of non proliferation.