Comments on: America’s covert war in Iran

By: Jarrah Job

Jarrah Job — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:40:52 +0000

“I’ll support anything that promotes individual liberty in Iran, whether it’s by the CIA or the CWA.”

Fair enough. But what about those taxpayers who disagree? Why should they help pay for your preferences?

“so that lunatic anti-semite president is thrown out and the nascent democracy movement gets a chance.”

That is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of Iranian politics and society. Firstly, Ahmadinejad is ranked about 18th in terms of power in Iran – it’s the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council who rule.

Secondly, “destabilising” Iran and its government could be counter-productive, by justifying the ‘Great Satan’ line and rallying Iranians to support their government instead of demanding it change.

By: War with Russia next on the agenda « Thoughts on Freedom

War with Russia next on the agenda « Thoughts on Freedom — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:39:21 +0000

[...] on the agenda The US is currently on the offensive in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and probably Iran. Recently ABC News reported that vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin won’t take a war with [...]

By: Jono

Jono — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:23:40 +0000

I’ve got to agree, Sy Hersh is a notorious idiot who continually predicts all kinds of conspiracies based on unnamed sources who’ve spoken about unnamed sources.

By: DavidLeyonhjelm

DavidLeyonhjelm — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:18:22 +0000

Seymour Hersh belongs in the Josef Goebbels school of journalism. Like John Pilger.

I seriously hope the CIA succeeds in destabilising the government of Iran so that lunatic anti-semite president is thrown out and the nascent democracy movement gets a chance.

I don’t give a flying fuck about national sovereignty. It’s not even remotely a libertarian principle. Libertarianism is about the liberty of individuals. I’ll support anything that promotes individual liberty in Iran, whether it’s by the CIA or the CWA.

By: a Duoist

a Duoist — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:12:23 +0000

Seymour Hersh? Did someone actually offer Seymour Hersh as a reputable reference? Seymour Hersh is to journalism what Al Gore is to environmentalism: full of conspiracy theory; full of personal angst because of their belief in the dominance of an inherent evil in human nature; they have a personal psychology dominated by a knee-jerk negativity: ‘Chicken Little’ is the most famous example.

Seymour Hersh is the favorite ‘source’ for people who believe in flying saucers, Nostradamus predictions, wild eschatological apocalypses, and the Zodiac. In short, the weak-thinking determinists.

By: jc

jc — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:39:45 +0000

The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied Hersh’s report, which did not name any sources. “I can tell you flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else,” he said on CNN.

So according to Sukrit, Ryan Crocker is lying and Hersh is right. I’d put my money on Ryan.

By: jc

jc — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:36:42 +0000

Sukrit no offense, but did you take stupid pills this morning?

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh is the most recent in a long string of reputable allegations, so we can take the odds of its veracity as being extremely high.

There isn’t one big call Hersh has ever been accurate on. The odds of Hersh getting something right would equate to the broken clock theory in that it’s right twice a day. However if Hersh was a broken clock he’d still get the fucking time wrong.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:34:26 +0000

Sukrit,

I don’t know Hilary’s plan nor is the sabre rattling often made at Iran of any good. But what is known that Iran is negligent or complicit in allowing Shiite insurgents into Iraq.

Do you agree if you invade a nation and overthrow a minority tyranny, you shouldn’t allow a majority sect or splineter members therof use violence to get it’s own way, nor allow outside backing of any insurgent group such as the Shiite insurgents (the majority group in this instance)?

What would be wrong with limited warfare?