cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 10:04 pm

In WWII, the editor would have been tried and convicted for treason and espionage. Now nobody cares.

So, are newspapers allowed to print anything they want, even if it has "top secret" stamped all over it?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

Quote:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

Of course this disclosure will make it all the more justifiable whenever the Iranians crack down on Iranian reformers and execute them.

So, how many pro-democracy liberals have you killed yesterday, ABC.news?
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 10:23 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity

Imagine that.... if these sources are in fact leaking classified information, then they need to be identified, tried, and dealt with accordingly. ABC news is reporting what they think will get viewers to watch. CBS, NBC, CNN and all the others would be all over this too if they were "leaked" this information.

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
Now nobody cares.

Sad, but true.
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
So, how many pro-democracy liberals have you killed yesterday, ABC.news?

So the way to go is to not practice the very same ideals and principals that one wishes to promote? Do as we say, not as we do? Whatever happened to transparency in government?

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Doona (Reply 2):
So the way to go is to not practice the very same ideals and principals that one wishes to promote? Do as we say, not as we do? Whatever happened to transparency in government?

Are you saying that government should not have any secrets?
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
So, are newspapers allowed to print anything they want, even if it has "top secret" stamped all over it?

If the current Bush-league government is stupid enough to make stupid decisions, then yes. That's a duty of the press.

They're just keeping a dishonest administration in line.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 3):

Are you saying that government should not have any secrets?

When it comes to attemted topplings of other goverments, no.

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:00 pm

In a free country, the press should have no boundaries as to what they can print - once you have boundaries, you no longer have a free press.

This is especially true when we are talking about the questionable act of a government interfering in the internal affairs of another government (I don't care that in this case it is Iran, I would be saying the same whomever the CIA was granted permission to operate against).
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:07 pm

Quoting Doona (Reply 5):
When it comes to attemted topplings of other goverments, no.

What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?

Interfering or intervening may be appropriate in some cases. However, if it is appropriate (ie: legitimate), why do it in secret?

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 pm

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
What if those other governments need toppling?

That worked swimmingly in Iraq, didn't it.

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?

Only when things start looking like Germany in the late 1930's.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 pm

Quoting Doona (Reply 8):
why do it in secret?

Not doing it in secret could, and probably would interfere with the interfering....  Wink
 
Emirates773ER
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:10 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?

The toppling of a goverment should be left on the people of that very country, not someone who lives a thousand miles away from it and has a long history of screw ups.
The Truth is Out There ---- Face It!!!!!
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 10):
Not doing it in secret could, and probably would interfere with the interfering....

Of course it could, but why not interfere (publicly) in a way that it won't fall apart from a little... interference?

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
User avatar
ManuCH
Crew
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:26 pm

IMHO the government should be able to sue ABC.news in order to have them reveal the source's name. At least that's how it worked in Switzerland last time a newspaper published "secret" information.
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Wed May 23, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting Emirates773ER (Reply 11):
not someone who lives a thousand miles away from it and has a long history of screw ups.

Like France maybe...  Wink

Quoting Doona (Reply 12):
but why not interfere (publicly) in a way that it won't fall apart from a little... interference

You answer that question, you can be a hero to the world.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 9):
That worked swimmingly in Iraq, didn't it.

Not yet. But ya can't fail until you try.  Silly
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 12:38 am

If the government would sue ABC, everyone would claim the Bush administration is taking away more freedoms, no matter if that would have occurred in WWII.
I love ASO!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 12:47 am

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):

What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?



Quoting Doona (Reply 8):

Interfering or intervening may be appropriate in some cases.

Who gets to decide which governments 'need' toppling? Which government or country gets that power of dictatorship ('you aren't good enough, goodbye') over all other countries?

Its a question that has no reasonable answer, because there are no absolutes in the world.

Thats the problem with this, its can of worms that, once opened, has massive world wide repercussions for every country that someone, somewhere disagrees with in some way.
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 2:45 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
Who gets to decide which governments 'need' toppling?

Don't know - that's all done in secret.  Wink

Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
Its a question that has no reasonable answer, because there are no absolutes in the world.

 checkmark 
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 2:50 am

Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

...except for Karl Rove's emails.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 18):
...except for Karl Rove's emails.

And German Chancellor Angela Merkel's attempts to revive the EU constitution!  silly 

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
If the current Bush-league government is stupid enough to make stupid decisions, then yes. That's a duty of the press.

They're just keeping a dishonest administration in line.

Are you saying that the press will decide, on its own, whether or not to obey the law?

Quoting Doona (Reply 12):
Of course it could, but why not interfere (publicly) in a way that it won't fall apart from a little... interference?

How would you do that, exactly?

Quoting Doona (Reply 5):
When it comes to attemted topplings of other goverments, no.

The fact of the matter is that this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years. It is an alternative to all-out war, when you have a country which is too dangerous to have around. Iran is one of those nations. We have been essentially in a state of cold war with them for nearly 30 years (which they started, I remind you), and now they are on the verge of getting nukes.

So, what do you propose to do about them?

- Go to war with them?

- Wait until they give a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas and it goes off someplace?

- Try to push out the hostile government without resorting to war?

Governments need to be able to keep secrets, which is why laws respecting that have been put in place. It sounds like you think the press is above the law.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 4:41 am

Christ, people get bent out of shape when the government listens to the phone calls of people calling the Middle East... they whine about invasion of privacy and all the drivel... but when it comes to military / foreign affairs secrets?? The same people demand that they have a "right to know."

Who cares if publicizing the information puts lives in danger... it's not their lives. Why the hell should they care?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):

Who cares if publicizing the information puts lives in danger... it's not their lives. Why the hell should they care?

If the paper has the information, its probably already plastered across a few dozen intelligence briefings in both 'unfriendly' and friendly countries dated a few weeks ago.

In other words, if the news media is getting it, its not exactly secure information.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 5:28 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 22):
In other words, if the news media is getting it, its not exactly secure information.

You have it backward. One of the most valuable sources of information for any intelligence organ is the Press! If you were in Chinese Intelligence, for example, you have hundreds of thousands of Americans running around the country trying to find out stuff and put it in the newspapers or somewhere on the web. You might have to wade accross a lot of Briteny and Paris stories, but you find gold too, such as this article.

The main purpose of intel, above all else, is to identify the objectives and means of other countries. For thousands of years, nations have tried to keep their objectives and the means they would use to achieve them secret, because if you know what the enemy wants and how he wants to get it, you can easily block him.

This article put US objectives and means over Iran and served it up on a platter. I'd call it treason.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 5:49 am

So I assume that we will soon here calls for a Plame style investigation into this matter?

Right?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 24):
So I assume that we will soon here calls for a Plame style investigation into this matter?

Right?

Its up to the government to bring the case this time - the reason there was an uproar about the Plame outing was because it looked to be a tit for tat retaliation by the government for someone stepping out of line.

So I don't see why you would expect the same response from the same people.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 23):
You have it backward.

I don't have it backward, because this isn't a one-way street we are discussing here.
 
davestanKSAN
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:32 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 5:57 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 24):
So I assume that we will soon here calls for a Plame style investigation into this matter?

Right?

The sad part is, my friend, that the answer to that question will depend on which political party one affiliates themselves with.

Dave
Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 6:19 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 22):



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 23):
You have it backward. One of the most valuable sources of information for any intelligence organ is the Press!

Cfalk is exactly right.

There largest wealth of information in free societies is the press. Trust me, I've dealt with the press numerous times in Iraq... you had to be very careful about what you said, because many of them honestly did not care if publishing certain information would be harmful.

In Iraq, what I found was that a lot of American journalists typically did not consider themselves "American" -- and thus many lacked a sense of loyalty, and desire to see their "side" stay safe and win the war.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 27):

Cfalk is exactly right.

There largest wealth of information in free societies is the press.

Just because he is right (and I did not dispute that) does not mean I am wrong - this information was for the taking, and its only right to assume that the press were not the only recipients, nor the first.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 27):
many of them honestly did not care if publishing certain information would be harmful.

Thats what you get from both maintaining a free press and essentially making the information game an adversarial one with three sides (the government, the press and the press again because they are in competition with each other).

Can't have a free press without meaning it.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 28):

Can't have a free press without meaning it.

Negative.

Freedom of the Press does not include the right to publish material that will directly endanger the welfare of American soldiers/citizens... or will endanger national security by divulging sensitive information.

Not only that, but it goes against the Ethics Code of journalism. You have an obligation to report the story, but you also have an obligation to your fellow man. When does the public's right to know outweigh the ethical obligation to compromise the security of your fellow countrymen?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 7:40 am

First, I think that the CIA needs to check to see who leaked this information. While I'm not usually one to argue for government secrecy, these sort of covert ops are a much better alternative, IMO, than full-out armed conflict, and they do require a level of secrecy to succeed. Also, this is not a case where the government is trying to subvert basic Constitutional protections, as they were (again, IMO) with the wiretapping stuff. So the press doesn't need to step in to protect the American people in this case. Let the covert ops run their course, then tell us about the details later.

However, Cfalk, I think you are overreacting here. The Iranians aren't stupid. They know full well that we would rather they had a different government, and they could reasonably assume that we are taking steps to destabilize their government. I don't think ABC has reported anything that the Iranians, or anyone else for that matter, didn't already suspect. And on another note, I don't think you can accuse the press of treason in situations like this. The press's job is to report the information it gathers to the people at large. Most of the blame for any illegal activity would fall with the leaker in the government agency, who has a responsibility to keep government secrets.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 9:56 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 29):
You have an obligation to report the story, but you also have an obligation to your fellow man. When does the public's right to know outweigh the ethical obligation to compromise the security of your fellow countrymen?

Without question. The press has an obligation, a right, and the ability to get the story out - correctly. But when they divulge information that is obviously "sensitive" and could put US, and US allies in jeopardy, it crosses a line, and they know it.

But, you're right -

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 27):
because many of them honestly did not care if publishing certain information would be harmful.



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 30):
Most of the blame for any illegal activity would fall with the leaker in the government agency, who has responsibility to keep government secrets.

You dang skippy - I refer back to post #1. They have a responsibility, and a legal obligation. They signed a document stating such.

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 1):
if these sources are in fact leaking classified information, then they need to be identified, tried, and dealt with accordingly
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 10:51 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 18):
Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

...except for Karl Rove's emails.

and Alberto Gonzalez's memory apparently...
NO URLS in signature
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 20):

The fact of the matter is that this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years.

So has torture, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, but that still isn't something most people approve on nowadays.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 20):
It is an alternative to all-out war, when you have a country which is too dangerous to have around.

It is not an alternative to all-out war! Iran is not as large a threat as it is percieved to be! Even if Iran were to get a nuke today, Israel still has around 200. Ahmadinejad talks about his army and that he wants nukes, but the fact of the matter is that HE HAS NO POWER the armed forces! That falls on the religious leaders, who enjoy MORE power in in Iran than the president. After the next election, Ahmadinejad will be gone, his popularity has gone through the floor in the last 15 months. Sure, they're annoying and keeps the rest of the world's guard up, but that is just the president trying to gain popularity within Iran. And since the Ayatollah hates him too, he won't even be on the ballot for the next election.

If you want to look at a real threat in that region, look at Pakistan. One of the most politically unstable countries in the world, with an islamist movement that's growing. Plus nukes, that we actually know are there this time. Ruled by a military junta (which usually is a good idea for peace and security, as well as regime longevity), Pakistan is considered a friend because there's a ready supply of intelligence coming out of the country.

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7069
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 2:24 pm

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 1):
Now nobody cares.

Sad, but true.

Totally agree. Know this first hand from my last job. My friend told her boss a secret and she spreaded it.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 8:45 pm

Quoting Doona (Reply 33):
Ahmadinejad talks about his army and that he wants nukes, but the fact of the matter is that HE HAS NO POWER the armed forces! That falls on the religious leaders

WTF do you think we are worried about??? It's the religious kooks at the top who have been feeding their young people for over 30 years that the US is the Great Satan , and that is the duty of Muslims to fight them, and who have been funding terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, and who have been actively arming and funding the terrorists in Iraq. Achmedinnerjacket is a latecomer firebrand, but all he is saying is what the clerics have been saying for years (and actually he tones it down).

As long as Iran is headed by religious fanatics, it will be a danger to the world, particularly when (not if) they acquire nukes. Achmedinnerjacket is a non-issue.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 9:23 pm

Yeah, and we all saw how well it worked out last time the US toppled an Iranian government. Then you wonder why the world hates the Bush administration so much. How do you all think the Islamic government came to be? Read up on history, and find out.

History really does repeat itself.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 35):
WTF do you think we are worried about??? It's the religious kooks at the top who have been feeding their young people for over 30 years that the US is the Great Satan , and that is the duty of Muslims to fight them, and who have been funding terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, and who have been actively arming and funding the terrorists in Iraq. Achmedinnerjacket is a latecomer firebrand, but all he is saying is what the clerics have been saying for years (and actually he tones it down).

As long as Iran is headed by religious fanatics, it will be a danger to the world, particularly when (not if) they acquire nukes. Achmedinnerjacket is a non-issue.

And the US isnt a threat to the world? Lets see... last time the US toppled a regime, they destroyed the country completely (Iraq). Last time the US toppled an Iranian regime, it was democratically elected, and friendly to the US. As a result, the Shah came in power with the full support of the US. Read up on the Savak, and what he did to his people with the US behind him - because as a result of his actions, the Islamic Revolution toppled him.

Now, why do you think Iranians hate the US, Charles? Gee, I don't know, destroying their first and only democratically elected government, then supporting one of the most opporessive regimes in the region at the time might have something to do with it. Don't try to make it sound like all of this is a result of nothing, Iran today is a direct result of US foreign policy in the past. And if it chooses to take the same path, it will alienate generations more of Iranians. Also, any intervention will bring a fierce backlash, as nobody trusts the US after what it did in Iran.

The real threat today is the US, just look at what it did in Iraq and what now it appears to be planning to do in Iran. As long as it continues its "with us or against us" foreign policy where any country not aligned with the US is fair game, it will remain the biggest threat.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 10:39 pm

Quoting QR332 (Reply 36):
Lets see... last time the US toppled a regime, they destroyed the country completely (Iraq).

Saddam destroyed Iraq. He had this little habit of invading his neigbors, and even after he got slapped down in 1991, he continued to shoot missiles at US aircraft on a daily basis (an act of war, by the way). He ignored the UN, and wasted the oil revenues on building dozens of gold-plated palaces for himself rather than on food, medicine and infrastructure for his people. The US took him out using the minimum violence possible - which is part of the problem. Had the US simply leveled the country, there wouldn't be the fighting we have today.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 36):
Last time the US toppled an Iranian regime, it was democratically elected, and friendly to the US.

The toppling of Mossedegh in 1953 was a RESTORATION. Mossedegh had nationalized industries and basically tossed out the Iranian Constitution, and was becoming more and more of a despot himself. Members of the Iranian parliament even went so far as asking the UN for help in deposing Mossedegh. Mossedegh forced the Shah into exile (in Baghdad, ironically). The US and British helped the Shah back into power which led to the preservation of the constitution.

Also remember that the only reason that Iran was an independent nation after WWII was strong diplomatic efforts and even overt military threats against Joseph Stalin, who occupied Northern Iran in WWII and intended to take all of it as soon as troops became available after the fall of Berlin. The US stood up for Iran when Iran needed help, and without that help, Iran would have been a puppet state of the Soviet Union, shipping all their oil to Moscow and recieving none of the benefits.

http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/cia-iran.pdf

Quoting QR332 (Reply 36):
As a result, the Shah came in power with the full support of the US. Read up on the Savak, and what he did to his people with the US behind him - because as a result of his actions, the Islamic Revolution toppled him.

The Savak is a sad chapter. But remember the context of the cold war, and the fact that Iran had many enemies, from the KGB, who tried to assasinate the Shah at least once with a car bomb, to Islamic fundementalists, who first tried to kill him in 1949. It was a dirty, dangerous time.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
Saddam destroyed Iraq. He had this little habit of invading his neigbors, and even after he got slapped down in 1991, he continued to shoot missiles at US aircraft on a daily basis (an act of war, by the way).

That's because we refused to stop oppressing and overflying his country after the war ended.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
He ignored the UN, and wasted the oil revenues on building dozens of gold-plated palaces for himself rather than on food, medicine and infrastructure for his people.

And the USA had the right to tell him how to run his country?
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:04 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
Saddam destroyed Iraq. He had this little habit of invading his neigbors, and even after he got slapped down in 1991, he continued to shoot missiles at US aircraft on a daily basis (an act of war, by the way).

A) The US didn't seem to mind when the neighbour was Iran. Hell, they supplied him with the chemical weapons he used against Iranian civilians and his own people.
B) What, do you expect him to sit and watch while US sent military jets flew overhead? Because i'm sure thats what the US would have done, right? Just sat back and watched  Yeah sure Not to mention the sanctions that were starving the Iraqi people - or are these actions not considered aggressive?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
He ignored the UN,

Thats funny coming from an American, especially a Repbulican. You guys only support and uphold UN decesions when convenient.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
and wasted the oil revenues on building dozens of gold-plated palaces for himself rather than on food, medicine and infrastructure for his people.

Nobody disagrees on that here. The problem is that the US never went in because of this... according to the US, he was a threat to American security, and he had WMDs. The whole "he was a bad man and we had to take him down" argument only came after the former 2 arguments were shown to be lies.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
The US took him out using the minimum violence possible - which is part of the problem. Had the US simply leveled the country, there wouldn't be the fighting we have today.

This is where Americans have it all wrong. The US went in expecting the Iraqis to be cheering and throwing candy at them, and planned very badly. From the beginning they only alienated Iraqis rather than winning htem over, and that is why the country went downhill. The US didn't replace the power vaccum created by his fall, and they didn't win the Iraqi people over. They let the country split, and that is why we have the fighting today. Its their fault for fighting, but its the US's fault for opening pandora's box. Especially when it had no business in doing so.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
The toppling of Mossedegh in 1953 was a RESTORATION. Mossedegh had nationalized industries and basically tossed out the Iranian Constitution, and was becoming more and more of a despot himself. Members of the Iranian parliament even went so far as asking the UN for help in deposing Mossedegh. Mossedegh forced the Shah into exile (in Baghdad, ironically). The US and British helped the Shah back into power which led to the preservation of the constitution.

Are you kidding me? Mossadegh was democratically elected, and when he stepped down he was elected again, which just goes to show how much support he had. He nationalized industries, which is why he was toppled - industries which harmed his own country in order to help colonialist Britain. Iran has every right to stop the unfair use of its resources, especially when the UK was pretty much practicing slavery with the Iranian labourers at Abadan and the Iranian people were starving despite the riches the country has. The Shah was a monarch, and a totalitarian one at that. He was planning to overthrow Mossadegh with the CIA in order to restore full power to himself, and in order to install himself as the total ruler of Iran. If the monarchy of the UK tried to consolidate power today from parliament and the prime minister, what would happen, Cfalk? This is the same thing. The UK and the US allowed him back into power so that they could continue exploiting Iran's oil.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
Also remember that the only reason that Iran was an independent nation after WWII was strong diplomatic efforts and even overt military threats against Joseph Stalin, who occupied Northern Iran in WWII and intended to take all of it as soon as troops became available after the fall of Berlin. The US stood up for Iran when Iran needed help, and without that help, Iran would have been a puppet state of the Soviet Union, shipping all their oil to Moscow and recieving none of the benefits.

So instead Iran became a puppet of the US, and the Iranian people recieved no benefits because the shah and his aristocracy kept them to themselves. Wow, I can really see how much better that was. And just as with Korea, Iran wasn't the US being all nice. It was the US looking out for its own interests by ensuring that Iranian oil continued to flow to the West, and in order to stop the spread of Communism.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
The Savak is a sad chapter. But remember the context of the cold war, and the fact that Iran had many enemies, from the KGB, who tried to assasinate the Shah at least once with a car bomb, to Islamic fundementalists, who first tried to kill him in 1949. It was a dirty, dangerous time.

Are you seriously defending the Savak? Who were pretty much the KGB of Iran? I can really see how much you practice what you preach about freedom and democracy here.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 38):
That's because we refused to stop oppressing and overflying his country after the war ended.

You seem to forget about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Sunnis Saddam massacred after Gulf War reel 1.

I suppose that we should not bother trying to stop genocide?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 38):
And the USA had the right to tell him how to run his country?

It was the UN, not the US.

And yes, I think Saddam forfeited much of his legitimacy when he is, first of all, an unelected dictator, an invader of peaceful neigbors, and guilty of genocide within his own borders.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:14 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 40):
It was the UN, not the US

Oh really? So where were all the other UN-members' air force patrols? It seems we always muscle in on doing work the rest of the world should be doing.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 40):
I suppose that we should not bother trying to stop genocide?

That George W. Bush is doing a bang up job addressing Darfur. Yep.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
Hell, they supplied him with the chemical weapons he used against Iranian civilians and his own people.

You had better check up on that. As I recall, the chemical weapons and components mainly came from Germany and the USSR. The US supplied some money, But I don't recall seeing F-16s in Iraqi colors, M-16s in the hands of Iraqi soldiers, or any other American weaponry being shipped to Iraq. Their weapons were French or Soviet.

And by the way, you might note that US assistance and friendly talks froze up significantly once it became known that Saddam had resorted to chemical weapons, especially after the kurdish incidents.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
Not to mention the sanctions that were starving the Iraqi people - or are these actions not considered aggressive?

The oil-for-food program was calculated to provide more than enough money for essential imports. Saddam simply prefered to have solid-gold toilets rather than feed the people.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
Thats funny coming from an American, especially a Repbulican. You guys only support and uphold UN decesions when convenient.

The reason we are so down on the UN is that they are generally all talk and no action. But on occasion, the UN will get off their asses and try to do something useful. It's rare, but laudible.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
The US didn't replace the power vaccum created by his fall, and they didn't win the Iraqi people over. They let the country split, and that is why we have the fighting today. Its their fault for fighting, but its the US's fault for opening pandora's box. Especially when it had no business in doing so.

I can't argue against you there, except the part that it was not our business. Yes, we got into something we did not sufficiently understand, but Saddam had to go, and I still think that we are better off today than if Saddam had been allowed to remain.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
He was planning to overthrow Mossadegh with the CIA in order to restore full power to himself, and in order to install himself as the total ruler of Iran. If the monarchy of the UK tried to consolidate power today from parliament and the prime minister, what would happen, Cfalk? This is the same thing.

You forget, it was Mossadegh who was ripping up the constitution, not the Shah. So, no, it is not the same thing.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
So instead Iran became a puppet of the US, and the Iranian people recieved no benefits because the shah and his aristocracy kept them to themselves.

Compare East Germany in 1990 with West Germany. One under Soviet domination. The other kept free by the US. Both populated by traditionally well-educated, industrious and hard-working Germans.

Any questions?

Quoting QR332 (Reply 39):
Are you seriously defending the Savak? Who were pretty much the KGB of Iran? I can really see how much you practice what you preach about freedom and democracy here.

Yes, the Savak was brutal. I'm just telling you that the whole world was brutal at the time, and the KGB and the fundementalists who were their main enemies have been historically proven to be as brutal or more brutal than the Savak.

Look at some context.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:26 pm

The relationship between the US press and the US government -- especially within Washington circles -- is like an incestuous dance where, to paraphrase The Clash, those who fuck nuns inevitably end up joining the Church.

This kind of backchanneling that we saw in the ABC news blog has been going on since time immemorial. I seem to recall Clinton signing a similar directive with regard to Iraq. Obviously, the "source" who provided that info didn't have a name and intelligence officials (maybe even those who did the leaking) did their duty and provided their knee-jerk response about not commenting on intel activities.

Looking at the ABC report itself, it's painfully clear that no compromising info was aired; after all, it cites former intelligence officials who were most likely "in a position to know." Second, it isn't that far of a stretch to conclude that if the US Navy has a battle group of the Iranian coast and rhetoric between both sides is escalating (to say nothing of the IAEA conclusion that Iran continues to enrich weapons-grade uranium on a clandestine basis) -- there's some covert stuff in the works.

I can't help but wonder how Cfalk et al. would have reacted to the press reports that showed that Ronald Reagan sold military goodies (and threw in an autographed Bible and White House cufflinks) to the very same regime that held US hostages for 444 days.
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 41):
Oh really? So where were all the other UN-members' air force patrols? It seems we always muscle in on doing work the rest of the world should be doing.

The no fly zones maintained by UK and US airforces after the first gulf war were a grey area under UN mandate - the US and UK maintain that they were allowed under UNSC resolution 688 but absolutely no mention of such action is contained within that resolution.

Thats why there were no other UN members taking part in said airforce patrols.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:37 pm

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 43):
I can't help but wonder how Cfalk et al. would have reacted to the press reports that showed that Ronald Reagan sold military goodies (and threw in an autographed Bible and White House cufflinks) to the very same regime that held US hostages for 444 days.

We were pissed, of course. But it was an understandable situation, whenever ransom is involved. Whenever someone is held hostage, you have a temptation driven by compassion to give in to ransom demands, no matter how many people try to tell you not to give in - on principle. Reagan's mistake was to give in to compassion. He wanted those hostages back, and lost sight of his principles.

Do you blame a father for paying his son's ransom? Difficult to do, even if you disagree on principle.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Thu May 24, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 45):
Reagan's mistake was to give in to compassion. He wanted those hostages back, and lost sight of his principles.

Firstly, Reagan did not send the weapons as a type of ransom for the hostages held at what was the US Embassy in Tehran. Those hostages were freed after the US and Iran reached an agreement on frozen Iranian assets in the United States.

Reagan was apparently thinking of a handful of US hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.

Second, compassion had nothing to do with that decision. Lt. Col. Oliver North saw it as an opportunity to blow his wad by building his own little international shadow government to bypass US law and siphon aid to the Nicaraguan Contras -- even if it meant arming Iran.

I presume Carter is entitled to the same "compassion" latitude regarding his decision to go ahead with the ill-fated Operation Eagle Claw...
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Fri May 25, 2007 12:08 am

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 46):
Reagan was apparently thinking of a handful of US hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.

That's what I was talking about. The Embassy hostages had nothing to do with Reagan.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 46):
Second, compassion had nothing to do with that decision. Lt. Col. Oliver North saw it as an opportunity to blow his wad by building his own little international shadow government to bypass US law and siphon aid to the Nicaraguan Contras -- even if it meant arming Iran.

True, but Reagan's motivations for the deal were the hostages in Lebanon. Read his memoirs. What happened to the money and the Contras was not his concern - that was in the hands of Poindexter and North, among others. I think Poindexter saw an opportunity and took it, and Reagan was too concerned about other things to notice or care.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 46):
I presume Carter is entitled to the same "compassion" latitude regarding his decision to go ahead with the ill-fated Operation Eagle Claw...

Yes, I think that Eagle Claw was an honorable attempt by Carter. But Eagle Claw failed due to inadequate planning and inadequate resources provided. But had it worked, Carter could have been a hero. He should have done EVERYTHING to make sure it worked.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Fri May 25, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
You had better check up on that. As I recall, the chemical weapons and components mainly came from Germany and the USSR. The US supplied some money, But I don't recall seeing F-16s in Iraqi colors, M-16s in the hands of Iraqi soldiers, or any other American weaponry being shipped to Iraq. Their weapons were French or Soviet.

You should brush up on your history. Yes, Iraq did have a military agreement with the USSR, but during the Iraq-Iran war Saddam turned to the West for support as well. Iraq and the US broke ties after the Six Day War, but in 1980 they restored diplomatic relations. Officially, it was finalized in 1984, well after it had become established and known by both the UN and the US that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Iraq got taken off the US's list of states committing state terrorism, and in 1985 when Congress tried to put it back, it got blocked. The US vetoes several resolutions condeming Iraq for its use of mustard gas, and at times it was the only country against the resolutions. The US provided crop spraying helicopters, used by Iraq in 1988 for spreading chemical weapons, arranged for massive lonas to be given to Iraq through Saudi and Kuwait, and they provided satellite images & information on military movements in order to allow Saddam to use chemical weapons against them. The US also allowed Dow chemicals to provide Iraq with chemicals for use against humans. The US even provided battle planning for the Fao peninsula in 1988, and Iraq extensively relied on mustard gas during this battle as a major tactic.

Does this tell you enough?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
And by the way, you might note that US assistance and friendly talks froze up significantly once it became known that Saddam had resorted to chemical weapons, especially after the kurdish incidents.

Nope, they froze once the Iraq-Iran war ended and Saddam was beginning to get out of control.

A simple Google search brought up this:

http://media.www.guilfordian.com/med...Facilitated.Genocide-2788165.shtml


The Reagan administration did nothing to rein their pet tyrant in; they didn't even scold him. The Great Communicator forgot how to speak. The American representative in the U.N. Security Council even vetoed efforts to condemn Iraq for the use of weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds.

In an unusual show of concern, the Senate unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," which was intended to cut off all U.S. aid to Iraq including U.S. importation of Iraqi oil. The Reagan administration dutifully protected Hussein and blocked the act.

The Anfal campaign enabled Hussein's regime to claim the dubious distinction of being the first country in history to use chemical weapons against its own people and the first regime since the Third Reich to use poison gas against women and children. And, America's sixth favorite president helped it happen.


Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
The oil-for-food program was calculated to provide more than enough money for essential imports. Saddam simply prefered to have solid-gold toilets rather than feed the people.

What about things like medical supplies, where even basic medical equipment was cut off from Iraq "in case it was used for weapons"? Please. The Iraqi people suffered the most as a result of the sanctions, not Saddam and the Ba'athists.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
The reason we are so down on the UN is that they are generally all talk and no action. But on occasion, the UN will get off their asses and try to do something useful. It's rare, but laudible.

The US is one of the causes for that inaction. Whenever a resolution it doesn't like is put forward, it is vertoes. For example, why do resolutions condemning or calling for action against Israel automatically get vetoes? That is part of the reason for the inaction of the UN. When all member states fairly agree on things, the UN will be less talk and more action.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
I can't argue against you there, except the part that it was not our business. Yes, we got into something we did not sufficiently understand, but Saddam had to go, and I still think that we are better off today than if Saddam had been allowed to remain.

Really? There have been what? Half a million deaths so far? The country is in ruins, and it will take decades for it to get back on its feet. Iraq under Saddam was at least stable. It was only Saddam terrorizing the people. Now, the Sunnis terrorize the Shi'aas, the Shi'aas terrorize the Sunnis, they both bomb each other and kill scores of people, and there is no security whatsoever in Iraq. People don't only fear the government now, they fear everybody around them. All of its educated middle-class are now in Jordan or in the West, and the rest of the Iraqi population, the majority of whom are poor and struggling to get by, is suffering. Even under Saddam, things weren't this bad. Under Saddam, you could be tortured and shot for speaking out against him - today, you could be blown to bits for walking down a street at the wrong time.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
You forget, it was Mossadegh who was ripping up the constitution, not the Shah. So, no, it is not the same thing.

Lets go over this again. Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil, and was blockaded by the British in order to not export any of it. Mossadegh tried, in vain, to help his people, he tried to ensure that Iran would be its own nation rather than one controlled by outside power, but the US stopped this. Mossadegh was voted by the Iranian majlis by 79-12 votes into power. Who the hell is the US to come in and overthrow a democratically elected leader looking out for his own country?

And if you want to talk consitution-wise, how was he "ripping up the constitution"? You are assuming the 1906 constitution was democratic, which it was not. The monarch still held ultimate power, and Mossadegh was attempting to make Iran more democratic. The Iran on 1953 was troubled, but it was on the way to becoming a pro-US, democratic state. The Iranians hated the British for what they did to Iran, but looked up to Americans. America destroyed this with Operation Ajax, and if goes through with the operation mentioned in the thread starter, history will repeat itself. Mossadegh used peaceful means to end colonisation, Britain even lost its case with the ICJ, and yet he was overthrown. It just goes to show that the West only advocates democracy when conveniant.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
Compare East Germany in 1990 with West Germany. One under Soviet domination. The other kept free by the US. Both populated by traditionally well-educated, industrious and hard-working Germans.

Any questions?

Your not seriously comparing Iran under the Shah to West Germany? West Germany was kept free in order to show how much better capitalism is than communism, the same as with S. Korea. Iran was a different story. The Savak were brutal, like the Stasi of East Germany, and while West Germany was prosperous, Iran was only prosperous for those in the upper classes.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
Yes, the Savak was brutal. I'm just telling you that the whole world was brutal at the time, and the KGB and the fundementalists who were their main enemies have been historically proven to be as brutal or more brutal than the Savak.

Look at some context.

That doesn't justify a damn thing.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
Emirates773ER
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:10 am

RE: Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

Fri May 25, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting QR332 (Reply 48):
QR332

Thanks for the brush up on my history!
The Truth is Out There ---- Face It!!!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests