'Die Welt': Iran building rocket bases in Venezuela

Tashah · May 21, 2011

Zyphlin said:
You're right, my initial notion that it was found out by the JPost was incorrect, it seems from the best I can translate (and adimttedly taht's poor) Die Welt found it out from...Die Welt? And JPost, supposedly a legitimate news source, was the only legitimate news source to seemingly jump on it as news because it apparently went wonderful with their journalistically sound cataloging of the "Iranian Threat" that they broadcast with a banner right through the middle of the story.

I highly doubt most folks in London would be very apprehensive about a hurricane in the Gulf veering towards Louisiana. But I’ll bet you a Cajun dinner that newspapers and media outlets in New Orleans would have extensive in-depth coverage. Iranian missiles don’t overly concern Westerners because they can’t (as of yet) affect you from Iran. But it’s a far different situation for Israel which is well within Shahab-3 range. Naturally, the people of Israel are going to be more interested in Iranian missile articles (from Die Welt, Reuters, etc.) than folks in London and New Orleans. Hence the more in-depth news and opinion coverage. It’s no secret that even “legitimate newspapers” pander to their demographic base.

I don’t know if the Die Welt story is true or not. Neither does JP which merely re-printed the Die Welt story. Reminds me in some ways of the destroyed Syrian nuclear reactor. US government officials claimed for days that they knew very little about the air-strike or the target, which was a lie. They knew everything. Exterior and interior photographs of the facility had literally been shoved in their faces. The evidence presented to them was overwhelming. Yet it took months for the true inside story to be fleshed out in the Western mainstream media.

I hope the Die Welt article isn’t true. But it wouldn’t really surprise me if Iran was involved in something risqué in Venezuela.

Zyphlin · May 23, 2011

But missles potentially moving into range to threaten the U.S. is an interest of the U.S.

Your point about the U.S. also furthers my point. It doens't surprise me for a country...be it the U.S., Israel, or Iran...to leak or withhold information...be it partial, fraudulent, or complete...that furthers their purposes or desires or motivations. Which is why I was skeptical when the only legitimate news sites carrying this is a German newspaper that is very pro-Israel and an Israeli paper...and that's it. Am I saying that it can't possibly be true? Absolutely not. It wouldn't shock me in the least if it was true or if Iran was trying this.

I'm just saying I'm not going to act like it is absolute gospel truth when there's legitimate motives and reasons to think otherwise, just as I generally would question a story that comes out of Franch that's negative about Israel that isn't picked up by any other legitimate source outside of something like Al-Jazera. If you want to talk hypothetically about the possability, sure thing. But to me it seems unwise to talk about it like a forgone fact.

Ockham · May 23, 2011

Zyphlin said:
But missles potentially moving into range to threaten the U.S. is an interest of the U.S.

Your point about the U.S. also furthers my point. It doens't surprise me for a country...be it the U.S., Israel, or Iran...to leak or withhold information...be it partial, fraudulent, or complete...that furthers their purposes or desires or motivations. Which is why I was skeptical when the only legitimate news sites carrying this is a German newspaper that is very pro-Israel and an Israeli paper...and that's it. Am I saying that it can't possibly be true? Absolutely not. It wouldn't shock me in the least if it was true or if Iran was trying this.

I'm just saying I'm not going to act like it is absolute gospel truth when there's legitimate motives and reasons to think otherwise, just as I generally would question a story that comes out of Franch that's negative about Israel that isn't picked up by any other legitimate source outside of something like Al-Jazera. If you want to talk hypothetically about the possability, sure thing. But to me it seems unwise to talk about it like a forgone fact.

Let's just say, for the sake of arguement, that the JPost article is 100% true. I'm not so worried about mid-range missiles hitting the U.S., but I'm worried about what comes after that. Setting a precident and allowing mid-range missiles to go up will put us at risk in the future. Given Iran's interest in making the U.S. uncomfortable and feeding Chavez's ego in the region will simply make it worse. Chavez then gets to bully the rest of South America and bring them into line to spread his views of the world. Chavez challenging the U.S. now is a joke; let him go on and put in missiles, influence the countries around him --- in 10-15 years he will challenge the U.S., sabre rattle and be a little thorn in everyone's ass like North Korea. Best to nip this sort of stuff in the bud.

Mayor Snorkum · May 23, 2011

ric27 said:
I am libertarian at heart. Do the hell what you want so long as exercising your rights and freedoms doesn't infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms. That applies to individuals and nations. If we believe in individual freedom, other nations have the right to decide what form of government they want.

So, when Ahmadinajad (whatever) steal and election and violently suppresses the protests, is Iran getting the form of government it wants? Did Iraq under Hussein have the form of government it wanted? How do you define "it'?

If these countries prefer a dictator like Gadaffi, Chavez, king, emir or a dumbass like Obama, then go for it. Just don't **** with our people or suffer the consequences. If that means supporting a lesbian dictator who leaves our people alone, then I don't have a problem with it if the alternative is an anti-American government.

Live and let die

"Prefer"?

The definition of dictatorship is the majority being cowed by a thuggish minority.

The Prof · May 23, 2011

whatever became of personal diplomacy with the leaders of iran, sans preconditions?

obama's address to aipac, june, 08:

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

Transcript: Obama's Speech at AIPAC : NPR

obama's comprehensive foreign policy never made any sense

he's unrealistic

Grant · May 24, 2011

ecofarm said:
The situation is problematic because Venezuela could become another Cuba, which is a clearly stated goal of Chavez.

I spend a lot of time in Central America and Nicaragua is undergoing the same transition. I have no idea why this is not receiving more attention in the mainstream press but the US must be aware of it.

PzKfW IVe · May 24, 2011

GWB did not make all that many great decisions while in office, but he did make the ones that counted.
Not listening to the liberals and pushing forward with the NMD was one of them.

PzKfW IVe · May 24, 2011

ric27 said:
The use of stealth choppers, violating a country's sovereignty, provoking or calling out dictators to step down or else be killed/assassinated are not helping ease the tensions. On the contrary, it will accelerate the output of their (rebel states) means of nuclear production.

The US has gone down (and still is) a path in which the use of force has become a chronic feature of U.S. foreign policy. This practice must stop

There are times when force is necessary.
In those times, there is no effective substitute.

ricksfolly · May 24, 2011

The Prof said:
obama's comprehensive foreign policy never made any sense

he's unrealistic

Only in a political sense, and that's what you seem to be pushing, your politics.

ricksfolly

The Prof · May 24, 2011

That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice...

where is it, where's the time and place?

unrealistic

"we have no time to waste," he said three years ago (june, 08, to aipac)

unrealistic---the 67 borders

unrealistic---expecting israel to negotiate with a unity half of which refuses to recognize israel (for starters)

worse---asking our ally of half a century to deal with deniers from a significantly weakened position

it is what it is

what's going on in libya, what's the mission, what's the exit strategy, who owns libya if we break it?

el baradei said yesterday that egypt was "disintegrating," he was speaking socially, politically, economically...

the day after obama's major arab spring address, the same day (last friday) bibi was lecturing our stonefaced president, chin cemented in his left hand, bashar al assad answered obama's call the day before to "lead or get out of the way" by subjecting the citizens of hom and the damascus suburbs to syria's bloodiest day yet

is that spin?

pray

'Die Welt': Iran building rocket bases in Venezuela

Noblesse oblige