"....Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action...."War Criminals R US

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

So what's left..bin laden tapes? Plenty believe them to be fake also as they always pop up at opportune times that enforce republican propaganda.

The iran nuke card is their best bet..and when they start a war with them and iran sinks the 5th fleet..americans will want blood and it will be spun that way..so much for "bring it on".

I think also Iran has been waiting patiently for the US to start a war.The US has done everything it can to start one without actually firing the first shot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
With support of republicans going down the drain they need some kind of pearl harbor type scenario to stay in power. State produced terror has pretty well fallen flat on it's face with too many people believing the white house is responsible for terror.

So what's left..bin laden tapes? Plenty believe them to be fake also as they always pop up at opportune times that enforce republican propaganda.

---

I agree that the repercussions For the US (and the rest of us) will likely be very bad; probably in the shape of an economic meltdown.
---
There is another thread for discussing the reality of the bin Laden tapes and I'd rather not confuse a known conspiracy with conspiracy speculation.

My opinion is the actions of the bin Laden and Bush camps are symbiotic--they produce propaganda windfalls that strengthen each others aims.

But from that reality it is a stretch to say they represent the same goals or that one is a mere image construction of the other's agenda. That is, neither do I think Bush's speeches and actions make him an al Qaeda manufactured ringer--no matter how much he assists bin Ladin's aims.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

Though it was in response to Bush's speech last Thursday, he appears to be alluding to much more.

quote:

---

This ongoing U.S. military commitment in Iraq has consequences, which include the strain placed on the health of the Army and the impact on U.S. military readiness should forces be needed to respond to other situations affecting our national interests. Bringing troop levels down to pre-surge levels will help reduce some of the strain on the Army, but not enough to ensure that it is trained and ready to deal with any future threat. I doubt it will also be enough to allow us sufficient forces for the hunt for Osama bin Laden and those who attacked us on September 11th.

"I remain unconvinced that placing U.S. military forces in charge of the counterinsurgency mission in Iraq, essentially fighting an Iraqi civil war, is worth the sacrifice in American lives, treasure, and the continued damage to the strategic ability of the United States to react to growing problems in other parts of the world. I believe that a change in mission for our forces in Iraq, coupled with a substantial reduction in their number, is in the best interest of U.S. national security. The Administration's proposal of minimal troop reductions does not do enough to get us out of the civil war in Iraq and ready to deal with our many other strategic challenges."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:

Although military action will assist the reelection of a war party (repub or democrat), plans to restructure (or destructure) much of the middle east through aggression was laid out before Iraq and is, IMO, not primarily an election ploy.

I agree that the repercussions For the US (and the rest of us) will likely be very bad; probably in the shape of an economic meltdown.
---
There is another thread for discussing the reality of the bin Laden tapes and I'd rather not confuse a known conspiracy with conspiracy speculation.

My opinion is the actions of the bin Laden and Bush camps are symbiotic--they produce propaganda windfalls that strengthen each others aims.

But from that reality it is a stretch to say they represent the same goals or that one is a mere image construction of the other's agenda. That is, neither do I think Bush's speeches and actions make him an al Qaeda manufactured ringer--no matter how much he assists bin Ladin's aims.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

---

Bush's speechs and actions have made him an al queda manufacturing ringer as evidenced by the infinite number of number 2 men that follow the destruction of one that can't wait to fill the spot.

Bin ladens construction phase for republican support has dwindled to nothing..it doesn't really matter anymore if tapes are real or fake or if 911 was a conspiracy or not. Or if bin laden has so much time on his hands he can run from cave to cave with a tube of grecian formula for his beard.

Compare that with the real cold hard facts that the US has actually murdered 10's of thousands of innocent people like a common war criminal and the 800,000 iraq oil for babies program they have yet to atone for and you have no shortage of al quieda support..none whatsoever.

Do some world traveling and you will find no shortage of disdain for what Bush has done to the US...when you hear Americans apologizing for him where ever you go , you will also have no doubt that a relative of an iraq killed by the US where there support would go. Hence the necessity of using depleted uranium in iraq and covering up the consequences....democratic sponsored genocide.

Yes I agree plans are made way ahead of time from the blowback reaction of the taliban to the wmd stocking of iraq ..it's all a question of timing. The blowback from this scenerio may be way more than north america or israel can handle however.

All it would take is one american city to suffer a meltdown and the entire north america would be ruined economically as no one is going to stick around in a city waiting in fear of being the next piece of charcoal..especially when they start televising what the end result is ...think planes was an economical nightmare? Want to see "cut and run" like you never seen before?

Where are they going to run?? Canada! Just hope they are not biologically contaminated! Then Russia or China might have to disinfect the area as a matter of preventing global extinction if you know what I mean. Think of the resources they would inherit?

quote:

---

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The Arab world? What's the connection?

---

Well,for one, the Iranians are Shi'ites and Saudi Arabia is known to support Iraqi Sunnis. The same Saudi Arabia that has made huge military purchases lately.

Another connection is the cross-border incursions by both Turkey and Iran into northern Iraq. While not reported at all in the western media, Turkish Weekly has reported that conflicts are escalating between Kurdish insurgents and both Turkey and Iran.

There are reports of a very tense situation in the Shat where both Iranians and Coalition forces are establishing spy posts on derelect oil platforms.

The Arab world won't be shipping much oil through the Strait of Hormuz and I'm sure they will be concerned over that connection.

And of course, don't forget Israel. If some entity or other is inclined to take a swipe at the Israelis during the confusion,don't bet that the Israelis will be unprepared.

Israel allegedly gets Turkish army’s OK for flights targeting Iran

quote:

---

Having limited airspace for training purposes, Israel reportedly used a longer Mediterranean route on Sept. 6 to test its pilots’ ability to fly with and without auxiliary tanks.

According to a retired Turkish general, Israel was testing its ability to reach Iran, a country that has been failing to convince the international community that its ultimate target is to obtain an atomic bomb.

“Syria is very close to Israel and you likely don’t need auxiliary tanks for a flight to a neighboring country. To train pilots for a long-distance flight you also need pilots to test auxiliary fuel tanks. Using this long flight equipped with tanks, Israel tested its ability to fly to Iran,” said a retired Turkish general.

---

quote:

---

The Arab world? What's the connection?

---

quote:

---

Well,for one, the Iranians are Shi'ites and Saudi Arabia is known to support Iraqi Sunnis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
I don't think the US is going to do very well with this one, at all. Unlike Iraq...Iran IS prepared. The big factor is going to be....does Iran already have nuke capability? If so they have made a grave mistake.

---

By “they” are you are referring to the US or Iran?

France: Prepare for War if Iran Obtains Nukes

If there are no nukes in Iran, the Iranians would be well-served to make it very clear that they don’t have them (with open inspections). If the Iranians have them (or if the Iranians don’t have them but convince the world that they do), I think it will result in war. But, there will be little Western appetite to occupy Iran, as the US and UK have done in Iraq. The objective would be total destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability.

The “grave mistake” would, therefore, be Iran’s.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

*psst....Iranians aren't Arab.

---

Ugh. I got this lecture once before... from an Iranian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Well, if they are going to embroil us in this, as it seems from our military build up, I say everyone who advocates war, and who advocates population control should be manditorily signed up and shipped off, as it is what they desire, war and lower population so they should start with themselves.

---

Isn't that akin to saying: Those who advocate more taxes "should start with themselves"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Ugh. I got this lecture once before... from an Iranian.

Moslem world then.

---

quote:

---

A simple and workable solution to this totally contrived bullshit would be that the Russians and Chinese sign a mutual defence agreement with Iran and provide them with 200-300 nukes, complete with the required delivery systems, thus replicating the Israeli arsenal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

By “they” are you are referring to the US or Iran?

If there are no nukes in Iran, the Iranians would be well-served to make it very clear that they don’t have them (with open inspections). If the Iranians have them (or if the Iranians don’t have them but convince the world that they do), I think

The “grave mistake” would, therefore, be Iran’s.

If Iran does have nukes and there is an attack on Iran, I would expect that Israel would be a grave risk. But, if Iran did attack Israel with nukes, that would result in the immediate end of Iran.

---

What I meant by they is the US..they have used Nukes on two cities and the only country in the world to do so. They don't like or expect countries to fight back.They can dish it out but can't take it.

As far as Israel is concerned..I would bet that unlike korea that gave a warning on testing a nuke...Israel will wake up one morning and see that Iran has tested a nuke on tel aviv..while issuing a warning to the US and France to not stick there nose in.

I would expect Russia or China to start taking a stance also now that France is picking sides.

The end result however you look at it is dismal for all party's. In the end (historically)however there will be a big finger pointing to the US and Israel as the reason behind all the destruction.

Again as mentioned a zillion times ..when the pres of the US makes an axis of evil speech threatening 1/3 of the planet with extinction there is only one way to react...Korea acted accordingly now Iran must act accordingly..then Syria must act accordingly.

By act accordingly ..I mean doing things to defend themselves from certain death and destruction ...this bullshit of accepting threats and rolling over might work good in media controlled places like Canada where prime ministers are quite willing to demoralize an entire country and dummy them up while the media treats them as simpletons...but the death threats don't go over to well in places where the power of conviction weighs more heavily than media control.

edit: Even russia has now acted accordingly ...they gave the US 3 strikes now they are out..Russia is now beefing up it's security and taking US threats on the planet more seriously. Look at the axis of evil speech as the US throne speech...well the world is reacting to it!

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Buddy Kat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Isn't that akin to saying: Those who advocate more taxes "should start with themselves"?

Most people who advocate more taxes don't have much, if any, taxes to pay in the first place.

---

Well, I suppose it could be "sorta", if indeed your "most people" assumption is correct. As most, who are war mongers, never go fight in a war, nor indeed have their children go fight in one either. And it is usually those who refuse to send themselves, or their children to war, though advocating it, who do not want to pay taxes either. They want the middle class to bear the tax burden from war debt burden and the lower classes to bear the war death burden.

Which is exactly why they should be going, and it is they who should be paying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

As most, who are war mongers, never go fight in a war, nor indeed have their children go fight in one either. And it is usually those who refuse to send themselves, or their children to war, though advocating it, who do not want to pay taxes either. They want the middle class to bear the tax burden from war debt burden and the lower classes to bear the war death burden.

Which is exactly why they should be going, and it is they who should be paying.

And those who advocate population control need to step up to the plate and put their lives where their mouths are.

---

Very true and one of the most sickening facts of human nature that may be coming to an end.I don't think that will change soon ..it's been like that since day one. BUT there is the indiscriminate weapon..the biological which can't tell a rich from a poor person , that is what they probably fear the most..and it's intresting to note that one of the warheads Iran is experimenting with is a biological one. Perhaps a "jew Flu"..." caucasion killer"

For the population control fanatics they would probably be happy to know that depleted uranium also has a sterility effect and as it covers most of Iraq, Afghanistan and will spread thru water land and air to surrounding areas.

So while everyone yaps about a holocoust 50 years later..there is one going on right now and they haven't got a clue.

Quiet overtures for bi-lateral talks with the US have been repeatedly rebuffed. Even if Iran agreed to a UN team which oversaw the destruction of its enrichment program, we've seen from Iraq and its UN inspectors that it makes no difference to the drumbeat to war.

And there are always other reasons to be trotted out. There is excuse that Iran is "interfering in the region"(!!) and causing the deaths of innocent US soldiers who are only there to help.
===
Recent related news:
"Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?"
Peter Beaumont
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer

Mystery surrounds last week's air foray into Syrian territory. The Observer's Foreign Affairs Editor attempts to unravel the truth behind Operation Orchard and allegations of nuclear subterfuge..."
Syria attack

Fed Reserve Alan Greenspan on the Iraq War: "It WAS about the oil, dude""I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

*psst....Iranians aren't Arab.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

There is a better way. Iran has already stated it is willing to abide by a WMD disarmament agreement in the region. All that has to happen is the US needs to force Israel to give up its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It is neither the Arabs nor the Persians who threaten peaceful development in the region.

---

I concur, FM, provided that the Israelis sign the NPT (for their civilian reactors) and subject themselves to IAEA inspections, just like a civilized country. This gesture, coupled with an American closure of its 700+ military installations around the world would be steps in the right direction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Bet you won't see this in western media either:

Israel allegedly gets Turkish army’s OK for flights targeting Iran

---

Is this the same story or another twist?

quote:

---

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

By “they” are you are referring to the US or Iran?

If there are no nukes in Iran, the Iranians would be well-served to make it very clear that they don’t have them (with open inspections). If the Iranians have them (or if the Iranians don’t have them but convince the world that they do), I think

The “grave mistake” would, therefore, be Iran’s.

If Iran does have nukes and there is an attack on Iran, I would expect that Israel would be a grave risk. But, if Iran did attack Israel with nukes, that would result in the immediate end of Iran.

---

Sven you almost seem to be licking your chops at the possibility, repeating the war propaganda to justify Iran's destruction.

quote:

---

I do not believe that the US can launch a new war on Iran because they haven't the troops. Second, if they do that they will be fighting the Iranians on three fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan and in Iran itself. So I think it is very unlikely that a war against Iran will happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Tariq Ali sees no war with Iran:

Asia Times

---

But, if Iran continues towards development of nuclear weapons and if there is a united front of the USA, Europe and Russia, Iran will back down. The lack of a united front in dealing with Saddam Hussein was one of the reasons he stubbornly maintained is claim that he had WMD and would not permit inspectors (he believed that Russia, France and Germany wouldn’t allow the USA and the UK to attack Iraq—which, of course, turned out to be a fatal miscalculation). Had there been a united front posing a credible threat of force to Hussein, he would likely have backed down and allowed inspections—and there would have been no war.

Similar factors apply to Iraq. But, we’ll see...

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I think what will be most telling is what the non-USA countries end up doing. I get the sense that Europe will react much differently to Iran than it did to Iraq (leaning more towards the USA than against). Russia is the key wild card and so is, to a lesser extent, China.

But, if Iran continues towards development of nuclear weapons and if there is a united front of the USA, Europe and Russia, Iran will back down. The lack of a united front in dealing with Saddam Hussein was one of the reasons he stubbornly maintained is claim that he had WMD and would not permit inspectors (he believed that Russia, France and Germany wouldn’t allow the USA and the UK to attack Iraq—which, of course, turned out to be a fatal miscalculation). Had there been a united front posing a credible threat of force to Hussein, he would likely have backed down and allowed inspections—and there would have been no war.

Similar factors apply to Iraq. But, we’ll see...

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

quote:

---

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.

"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can,"

---

quote:

---

Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

---

quote:

---

"Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," said General Mohammed Hassan Koussechi, according to the state news agency IRNA.

"If the United States is saying that they have identified 2,000 targets in Iran, then what is certain is that it is the Americans who are all around Iran and are equally our targets.

"We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."

Not only are U.S. and other coalition forces in neighbouring Iraq, but many Western firms are based in such places as Dubai. There is also a U.S. base in Qatar and the main harbour of its Fifth Fleet is in Bahrain.

An escalating conflict could even include oil fields in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer, as an Iranian target.

---

Ahmadinejad's address at the UN on Monday should be interesting.

This could be the day Israel and the US attack Iran..it would be fitting and cowardly they both have no respect for the UN and they could use the Iran pres as a bargaining chip should things get out of hand (5th fleet sinks)...tel aviv goes boom.

Failing that I would expect the Iranian pres to point out this lack of respect and the double standard and issue warnings to both Israel and the US. Possibly even justify there destruction to the applause of many nations..at least 1/3 of the planet.

Talk about intimidation and bullying on an international scale tho..Your country is surrounded by another countries army that (labels you terrorist) has identified 2000 targets in your country and next door you have another country that is lawless when it comes to international inspections etc. etc.That can't wait to kill kill kill...

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The former US military commander in Iraq has come out against any strike against Iran:

---

quote:

---

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has attacked the head of the UN nuclear watchdog for urging caution in the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme.

She said diplomacy was best left to diplomats, not a technical body such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The criticism came after IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said force should be a last resort in the Iran dispute.

He dismissed talk of military action in Iran as "hype" and urged people not to forget the lessons of war in Iraq. [...]

Mr ElBaradei won the 2005 Nobel peace prize for his work with the IAEA to prevent nuclear energy being used for military purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Yes, but Abazaid said it yesterday. I posted it because of the thread title here.

I hope an attack on Iran is not a "near certainty" since it would be a worldwide catastrofe.

---

In their push to settle accounts with Iran,the Bushites have no political capital to lose and more than a year of lame duck presidency left.

While is is a near certainty that a Democrat will win in 2008, Bush has raised the US debt 3.2 trillion dollars to almost 10 trillion and the next president will spend the term cleaning up the mess Dubya left behind. The next president will have no fiscal room to move and will have to raise taxes and cut spending.

Good luck to a tax and cut president trying to be reelected in 2012.

They've been manufacturing consent for some time now. In fact, I thought we'd have seen something by now. I felt we were closer months ago.

Don't get me wrong. I'm filled with dread over this. I just can't see it going any other way. And somehow, knowing the French are on our side this time does little to ally this feeling of impending doom.

What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. Next stop is Iran. And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates. There ain't no time to wonder why--Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

quote:

---

What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. Next stop is Iran. And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates. There ain't no time to wonder why--Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

---

Is the final trumpet blowing? Is death riding his pale horse? are we busted in the blinding lights of closing time?

quote:

---

I'm glad I paid so much attention to politics when I was a kid during the 60's. At least I'm not afraid of the unknown...

---

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Do you believe this action harolds World War 3?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Balls. Everyone is afraid of the unkown, to varing degrees of course.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Rice attacks UN nuclear watchdog

By the way, I humbly ask contrarianna to please amend the title of this thread - it's embarrassing. I considered opening a new thread, but that is rarely productive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:

I am prepared to be embarrassed by my title if you can indicate why.

---

Because it's a prediction of the future - your own prediction (the article, which I don't trust for two seconds, doesn't make any such prediction) - and it's based on what? Some anonymous unattributed statements turned into an article in sensationalist fashion by some right-wing newspaper?

It's like saying "Israel will invade the West Bank by Christmas". Either furnish some evidence, or don't say such things. You don't know.

Here's another example. Think 1965: "U.S.-Soviet nuclear clash near certainty." It's just fearmongering, not science.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Because it's a prediction of the future - your own prediction (the article, which I don't trust for two seconds, doesn't make any such prediction) - and it's based on what? Some anonymous unattributed statements turned into an article in sensationalist fashion by some right-wing newspaper?

It's like saying "Israel will invade the West Bank by Christmas". Either furnish some evidence, or don't say such things. You don't know.

Here's another example. Think 1965: "U.S.-Soviet nuclear clash near certainty." It's just fearmongering, not science.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

Certainly, political predictions are not "science" unless in the (unlikely) case all variables are available to the predictor (though babble would be much duller if political predictions were banned).
Your examples of prior failed predictions do not determine (predict?)" subsequent cases.
Had you instead chosen a past "fear-mongering" predictive title such as: "Bush will attack Iraq: chemical weapons or not", (with its closer approximation to the same lead-up, actors and agenda which obtain for Iran), the conclusions could be different.

As to your distrust of the right wing Telegraph-- fair enough, I had mentioned the possibility of disinformation (the tone of the Telegraph itself is that Iran is a serious threat that must be stopped, by any means necessary). To me, the details about administration infighting are plausible and interesting especially as a development from the earlier articles on the subject including the Guardian's July piece:

"Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran"
· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007"

Guardian

That the Telegraph is a bellicose mouthpiece making these statements is an interesting anomaly as (indirectly) noted by the article itself when it states:
"Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney."