Friday, December 14, 2007
Europeans on American intelligence
Stratfor reports in a "sitrep" this morning:
Diplomats from the United Kingdom, France and Germany said in Washington on Dec. 13 the European Union will impose its own sanctions against Iran if the U.N. Security Council fails to act or passes a weak resolution, the Jerusalem Post reported. The diplomats, speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the recent U.S. intelligence assessment on Iran would hardly change European policy toward the country.
At least Europeans are consistent in their disdain for American intelligence, unlike our own left-wing, which does not believe our spies when they identify a threat but assigns totemic significance to their collective bureaucratic judgment when they deny a threat exists.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Dec 14, 10:25:00 AM:
...our own left-wing ... does not believe our spies when they identify a threat but assigns totemic significance to their collective bureaucratic judgment when they deny a threat exists.
Couldn't the converse be said of our own right-wing?
And isn't the burden of proof different for people who want to go to war than for people who want to maintain the status quo?
By , at
Fri Dec 14, 07:38:00 PM:
I don't think that's a fair question. People don't 'want to go to war' for no reason. As a matter of fact, people don't *want* to go to war.
The very fact that it's seriously pondered is because there is a lot of evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear arms. That already upsets the idea that there even is a stable status quo.
War and armed conflicts are acts of policy, entered into for the good of the nation. If the good of the nation demands a war, then you go to war. If the good of the nation demands peace, you do that instead.
The idea that there is a sort of scale of tolerated aggression, that conflict is not justified unless belligerent power X crosses this red line only feeds aggressive behavior because belligerent power X (and their cohorts Y and Z) soon learn to approach that line, then back off a little, then approach it again, back off a little, and so forth, each time gaining more relative power and influence until they are finally ready to challenge the status quo.
This is made even worse by the 'well sure we think they've crossed the red line, and they're doing their best to mislead us about it, but since you can't prove it we'll just sit here' school of foreign policy.
These facilities are buried, fortified, surrounded by air defenses, garrisoned by the mullahs' private army, and they don't allow visitors. There's not going to BE any definitive proof until an actual atomic detonation.
All we can do is make our best guess and follow up on it. Personally, I think that the idea that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear arms is retarded. Plenty of countries in the world use nuclear power. But their facilities are regulated and are not buried, fortified, surrounded by air defenses, and garrisoned by the mullahs' private army.
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Fri Dec 14, 07:45:00 PM:
There's not going to BE any definitive proof until an actual atomic detonation.
I bet there's spies working for a half dozen different countries working the facility right now.
By , at
Fri Dec 14, 11:19:00 PM:
> Diplomats from the United
> Kingdom, France and Germany said
> in Washington on Dec. 13 the
> European Union will impose its
> own sanctions against Iran if
> the U.N. Security Council fails
> to act or passes a weak
> resolution,
khmmm khmmm. But what about multilateralism? Shouldn't the Europeans (who are represented with *TWO* seats at the SC), follow the UN? Replace the European Union with the United States, Iran with Iraq, 2007 with 2002, and you see a very familiar picture. The only difference is that the US had the hard power to depose Saddam...
Vilmos
By , at
Sat Dec 15, 01:33:00 AM:
At this point I'm content to wait for proof. Proof as in New York getting a brand new hole in the skyline, one that glows in the dark.
Sort of rough on the millions that live there, but they are all liberals anyway. It will do more to unite America then anything else I can think of. Plus, it will pretty much put and end to the Media that lost Vietnam and is trying to lose Iraq. And then there is the side benefit of removing 3 or 4 million democratic voters in a Pika-Dan (Flash-Boom). I would think that would cause New York the state to lose a few Representatives as well as EV's.
So New York city getting nuked does have it's upside.
Plus there is no way of telling just which rogue state did the dirty deed. So that would leave the table pretty open on who we nuke back. Everybody would point at Iran, but it would be right up Mossad's ally to do it, knowing the USA would blame Iran and that there is nothing Iran could say or do to change anyone's mind. That way Israel could get rid of the Iranian threat in a very cost effective manner.
The Media needs to start working on a plan to stop a homicide bomber with a nuclear weapon. Good luck with that.
By , at
Sat Dec 15, 12:41:00 PM:
"I bet there's spies working for a half dozen different countries working the facility right now."
Then why is there even a debate?
