Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Freedom marches on | Main | A Point-ed question »

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

No More Illusions

Michael Ledeen performs an invaluable service; “No More Illusions”...

Posted by Winston on September 4, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ed77c278833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No More Illusions:

Comments

Michael Ledeen performs an invaluable service; “No More Illusions”...

Odd isn't it that Ledeen was one of the people who initiated the sale of arms to Iran in 1985 which later became known as Iran - Contra.

Posted by: JAS39 | 2007-09-04 7:19:43 PM

Source???

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-04 7:27:10 PM

According to the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair issued in November 1987, the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan. The report shows that Israel's involvement was stimulated by separate overtures in 1985 from Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar and National Security Council (NSC) consultant Michael Ledeen, the latter working for National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. When Ledeen asked Prime Minister Shimon Peres for assistance, the Israeli leader agreed to sell weapons to Iran at America's behest, providing the sale had high-level U.S. approval.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Iran_Contra_Affair.html

Posted by: JAS39 | 2007-09-04 7:47:38 PM

*

It would not be politically correct to complain about the purge of white English speaking people from the planet. The Republicans are merely complying.

Brings an old line from the Borg collective to mind.

"You will be assimilated, resistance is futile"

Posted by: John | 2007-09-04 8:18:45 PM

Related segment on Glenn Beck tonight where the theory of why Iraq really was invaded was to put the heat on Iran.

Makes sense in a historical context, dating back to the Iran hostage incident and the subequent sponsorship by the then Jimmy Carter regime of sponsoring the re-awakening of al Quaeda.

That was done through helping certain members of the ISI, the Pakistan internal security agency.

Just connecting the dots here, but those miltants then became the founding organizers of the Taliban.

To make a long story short, Iran has been threatening the US ever since.

The theory was that Iraq/Afghanistan were good places to put pressure on the Iranians, who are currengly in Iraq and have direct involvement with Hib'allah.

The guest took part in a war games exercise last year about what it would take to take out Iran.

They concluded the price of oil would immediately double and pointed out that during the last conflict, the Straits of Hormuz were kept open to keep the flow of oil going out of other countries.

Beck then said Saudi Arabia had increased their security around their own oil installations in the past week.

This is an interesting scenario and it seems people are now getting quite edgy in the entire MIddle East about Iran.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-09-04 8:30:47 PM

JAS39's brief didn't mention that terrific guy, the little short Navy Admiral who was the REAL superb brains behind (or certainly wonderfully involved in) the Iran Contra sale of arms to help Iran fight Sadaam, and help us arm the superb Freedom Fighters against Communist Daniel Ortega, in Nicaragua. The Admiral was Oliver North's boss, and if I'm not mistaken he was the National Security Adviser for Reagan evidently before Mr. McFarlane. That Admiral was the originator of the data mining operations which surfaced terrorist money flows and terrorist telephone connections all over the world, all great accomplishments during the wonderful Reagan years.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-04 8:31:13 PM

Set, do you actually form your opinion based on the Glenn Beck show?

As for the Iranian threat, I just read an excellent article, showing how Bush can attack Iran without any immediate repercussions, as sad as that sounds. Here is a quote:

"All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not ­according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law."

source: http://www.counterpunch.org/bricmont09042007.html

It is certainly better than forming your opinions by watching Glen Beck (sorry syf), who is less intelligent than anyone posting on this site.

Just watch this video clip of his show and I guarantee you will feel awkward and uncomfortable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTPfTfgT-Vo

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-05 12:57:23 AM

One more quote: "In France, moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization")."

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-05 12:58:05 AM

One has the "legal" right to attack an enemy wghen that enemy has said they will exterminate you the second they get nuclear wespons. Having purchased missioles from North Korea that can reach Paris, IRAN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO BOMB LIKE THE NAZIS NEVER HAD.

ONLY A FOOLISH NATION WOULD WAIT UNTIL ONE OF THEIR CITIES HAS BEEN NUKED BEFORE RESPONDING IN KIND, AFTER SUCH THREATS FROM IRAN.

NUKE THEM NOW - BEFORE THEY NUKE US FIRST.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-05 7:16:27 AM

Ed:

The right has a right to form its own conspiracy theories, too.

Just repeating what the guests said actually happened.

I believe war games were carried out a year ago and the scenarios have been thought out.

The whole scenario is plausible, just check out a map.

With fledgling democracies in both Iraq and Afghanistan (nobody can deny elections were held), it's entirely within the realm of possibility Iran was the real target.

But, obc, apparently the theory is that once things settle down, the people of Iran themselves will carry out the toppling of the mullahcracy.

At least, that seems to be the preferred course of action.

It doesn't seem feasible that the US is as trigger-happy in this case as you are.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-09-05 7:42:52 AM

The people of Iran may not be able to topple the Islamofascist dictators before the nukes are developed. It is the right of any nation to take pre-emotive action when threatened with extinction by zealots who look forward to dying for the false prophet's god - and get their virgins in Paradise.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-05 7:51:51 AM

Edmontonian said: "The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not ­according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none;"
In 1979 the sovereign territory of the United States was invaded, when their embassy in Tehran was stormed and taken. This alone is Casus Belli.

Posted by: Dana | 2007-09-05 11:15:36 AM

. . . not to mention the arms Iran sneaks into Iraq today to kill American soldiers.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-05 1:05:06 PM

You may want to read this interview, OBC

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5YzI1YmM4ZDhkMWQxNzg4MDVjZDdjM2VhNDhhMTA=

Posted by: Winston | 2007-09-05 11:17:12 PM

ebt:

Thnks.

I am quite aware that there are two dozen reasons for the Iraq invasion.

Even though the major reason in all the UN resolutions was weapons of mass destruction whose location Saddam promised to reveal during his retreat from Kuwait.

It sounds like we're in agreement.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-09-06 12:56:21 PM


The comments to this entry are closed.