Reply With Quote
When this doesn't happen are you going to own up to your silly posts?
Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent.
By BENNY AVNI
September 28, 2007
The SunUNITED NATIONS — In a sign that U.N. Security Council-based diplomacy is losing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. France and America also are pushing for tighter economic sanctions against Tehran, without U.N. approval.
Yesterday's edition of Le Canard Enchaîné, a French weekly known for its investigative journalism, reported details of an alleged Israeli-American plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The frontpage headline read: "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!"
Like most stories in the French paper, the article was based on unnamed sources who said that in order to reduce casualties, the attack against Iran is planned for October 15, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Israel would bomb the first targets while America would orchestrate a second wave of strikes, the report said.
Ironically, the right-wing clamor for war with Iran is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here’s why:
– The success of the right-wing’s push for military action hinges on establishing that the U.N. Security Council can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program. As the Sun notes, the U.S. and French are already considering an effort to proceed “without U.N. approval,” in essence forming a “coalition of the willing” that ignores the U.N. (It wouldn’t be the first time.)
– Russia and China, both members of the permanent five, have rebuffed efforts to increase sanctions on Iran, fearing that they “will be exploited to support a U.S. policy of regime change or military action.”
– That fear, precipitated by right-wing rhetoric, then inhibits the U.N.’s ability to agree on sanctions that could be used “to increase the pressure on Tehran to comply with the Security Council’s demand to suspend uranium enrichment.” The failure to instill a new sanctions regime then allows the administration to push for confrontation.
When this doesn't happen are you going to own up to your silly posts?
You know Manny, I'm not gonna sit around and wish that the Israelis and the U.S. bomb Iran just to make you look silly...I'm just discussing what's out there....
So do you think its going to happen or not?
Eventually, I see that it is unavoidable....
What's going to happen when Iran retaliates, and every other country in the Middle East jumps in because of their hate for Israel?
I'll tell you what happens, we get pulled into a major war and the draft is reins uted
And my ass is off to Canada
I think it is also. I wouldn't bet on it happening before Oct.15, but I'm afraid it will happen at some point. Too much rhetoric. Too much Ahmadinejad bashing. I expect to hear alot about a potential mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv in the next year.
Is it happening before or after Cheney resigns?
Once they bomb Iran there won't be much use for Cheney much longer now will there?
Don't underestimate the political influence of the Pro-lukid/AIPAC faction leading the charge against Iran - American legislators like Joe Lieberman and John Kyl....
Meanwhile, just like in pre-war Iraq, the W.H. is carefully structuring it's pre-war terminology so that it can bomb Iran without any further approval for military action from Congress...
ATimesThe Bush administration now believes that Iran's "larger strategic aim" in allegedly providing modern weapons such as 240mm rockets to Shi'ite militias targeting US and coalition forces in Iraq is "to attempt to establish escalation dominance in Iraq and strategic dominance outside", according to the official.
The official said, "Escalation dominance means you can control the pace of escalation." That term has always been used to refer to the ability of the US to threaten another state with overwhelming retaliation to deter it from responding to US force. The official defined "strategic dominance" as meaning that "you are perceived as the dominant center in the region".
The Bush administration has never used the term "strategic dominance" in any public statement on Iran. According to a concept of regional "dominance" defined by perceptions - which would mean the perceptions of Sunni Arab states who are opposed to any Shi'ite influence in the region - Iran could be seen as already having "strategic dominance" in the region.
The reported conclusion that the increased attacks by Shi'ite forces represent an effort to achieve such dominance could be the basis for a new argument that only by reducing Iranian influence in Iraq through military action can the United States avert Iranian "strategic dominance" in the region.
That conclusion about "strategic dominance" thus implies that destroying what is perceived to be the political-military bases of Iranian influence in Iraq has become the key US war aim.
The conclusion that the Shi'ite militias' rocket attacks on coalition targets represent a bid to "control the pace of escalation" could be interpreted as expressing a concern that the US lacks the military capacity to suppress those forces. That raises the question whether the advocates of war against Iran have introduced the concept of "escalation dominance" as a way of supporting their favorite option - attacking targets inside Iran.
Further evidence that the Bush administration has taken a step closer to geographic escalation of the war came in a September 10 interview by Brit Hume of Fox News with General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. Hume, who appeared to have been tipped off to ask about the option of broadening the war into Iran, asked Petraeus whether the "rules of engagement" allowed him to "do what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?"
Pressed by Hume, Petraeus said, "When I have concerns about something beyond [the border], I take them to my boss ... and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation."
Joe Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, said that if the report of the administration's conclusions about Iranian aims is true, "it is a disturbing sign that the hardliners have regained the pre-eminent policymaking position".
The use of the term "escalation domination" in the Iraq context - suggesting that Iran is responsible for the conflict - is "wildly inappropriate", Cirincione observed. He said the reported conclusions sound like the viewpoint of a "group of people inside the administration who view Iran as Nazi Germany" and who are "constantly exaggerating" the threat from Iran.
The view that Iraq has become a US-Iranian "proxy war", with Iran pulling the strings in the Shi'ite camp outside the government, was apparently rejected by the US intelligence community in its National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq issued last February. The brief summary findings statement released to the public stated, "Iraq' s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects of stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."
If they made that decision months ago what use is he now?
Of course, Iran bears absolutely no responsibility for manifesting this possibility, do they?
Arming al Qaeda and insurgents in Iraq and destablizing the region.
Arming Syria and Hezbollah against Israel and destablizing the region.
Assisting Syria with their WMD Program and destablizing the region.
Having a Head of State that denies the Holocaust and believes Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Defies a feckless U.N. and proceeds with their own nuclear weapons program.
Over 30 years of sponsoring, supporting, or engaging in acts of war against the United States of America, its allies and interests around the world.
No, Iran bears no responsibility whatsoever...just a bunch of neocons itching for another war.
I don't think it will happen. Maybe lots of covert operations,
but nothing out in the open. Lots of accusations from Iran
and lots of denying from us and others.
Bush and the dimms don't want another front on this war.
Maybe somewhere down the line, but not while Bush is in
office.
What you're not considering is that there may be a school of thought that says, invading or, otherwise engaging, Iran on a large scale will cause them to withdraw their assets from Iraq (where they are wreaking havoc) and, thus, allow a victory there. Also, it may have the effect of disrupting their military and intelligence operations in other areas of the region (i.e. Syria) and, thus, allowing Israel to face an isolated Syria.
I think Israel has already set the stage for this by obliterating whatever candy store the Iranians were helping to stock in the desert Northeast of Damascus.
I have no way of knowing but, a front in Iran could make their operations elsewhere untenable.
I don't know yonni. But I would suspect that Iran will
increase their operations if attack, they have Syria that
will come to their aid and believe it or not I think the
little dictator Hugo, Venezuela, would try to help him
by stirring up things down south. Don't forget Iran
borders on Afghanistan and I have no doubt they are
help AQ there and would step up their efforts there. No
I just don't see us chancing anything openly by attacking,
when I think we more than likely can do it undercover,
even with some help from the citizens of Iran.
Hugo could even be planning, right now, on how to
get things stirred up even more down south. Him and
the other little dictator from Iran are big buddies and
have the great Satan, U.S. as common enemies. One
thing for sure. There is talk about cutting off supplies of
gasoline to Iran, since they have only one refinery and
must import most of their gasoline. Hugo will be sure
they have plenty, he will give it to them.
I am not so sure. Airpower, yes, but absolute defeat?
Not without boots on the ground. And I just cant see
where we would get the manpower without pulling every
thing out of Germany, Japan and South Korea. Not an
easy task.
That's the most coherent arguemnt I have ever heard from xray.There is also a school of thought that says once the Iranian homeland is attacked, their people are wont to moblize and do crazy like organize human wave attacks against their enemies. They don't mind losing four volunteers for every one enemy killed, and they potentially have ten million volunteers.
If we do anything, we are just going to do some Clintonesque sand-pounding in Iran and try to secure the border. Even Blackwater USA lacks the manpower for an invasion of Iran.
sandpounding at least gives us a short term blanket of a few years before more action is necessary
i like that term, sorry CD but i am stealing it.
I didn't coin it; it was part of the neocon mantra once they got into office and started swinging their s around. It can actually be effective in the right cir stances. Marine General Anthony Zinni was highly critical of Desert Fox when it happened, but he later found out that it almost led to an overthrow of Saddam in 1998. Unfortunately, the government of Iran is nowhere near as weak as that of Iraq back then.
Iran is doing almost exactly what any leader in power in Iran would do. Everything I've read that he said this past week, all that ish, he performed his part quite well.
I think the warhawking movement is so slagged down by Iraq that a sandpounding is about all we can fear/hope for, and hopefully if it does happen it will be at the right time and produce real results.
From the same "school of thought" that brought you "Cakewalk", "Greeted as liberators", "The war will pay for itself" and "the insurgency is in it's last throes".
Your "school" should lose it's accreditation.
Whom do you think is the driving force in the WH to bomb Iran? Joe Lieberman?
The way I see it now, unless Giuliani starts trumping his Republican compe ors soon, and I think you will soon see a consorted effort by the wing-nut echo chamber to boast Giuliani despite the obvious moral differences, you could see Cheney step aside for physical reasons (that will be the caveat) and either Giuliani or some other Neocon with political aspirations step in to finish his term........
Is turnabout fair play?
Iran Labels CIA 'Terrorist Organization'
Published: 9/29/07, 6:25 PM EDT
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -LinkIran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.
"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the 290-member Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.
The resolution, which urges Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations, would become law if ratified by the country's hardline cons utional watchdog but probably would have little effect as the two nations have no diplomatic relations.
Ahmadinejad's government was expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision. The White House declined to comment Saturday.
Terrorism to End Terrorism
by Sheldon Rampton
PR WatchBoth internationally and in the United States, the "war against terrorism" has provided propaganda cover for crackdowns on human rights and civil liberties. Like other PR efforts to capitalize on the September 11 tragedy, this rhetorical use of terrorism has a long prehistory. As early as 1976, a media plan developed by the Burson-Marsteller PR firm advised Argentina's brutal military junta--then in the process of murdering thousands of Jews and leftists--to make over its image by "calling a meeting to examine terrorism and means of eliminating it," thereby identifying "Argentina as a member of a group of free world nations condemning all classes of terrorism," which "would immediately unite it with those countries which respect human rights and civil liberties."
....
The American Chemistry Council ... made the threat of terrorism the centerpiece of its own newly aggressive campaign to roll back "public right-to-know" policies that enable citizens to learn about toxic hazards in their communities.
.......
Many right-to-know rollbacks have focused on the Internet. Shortly after September 11, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website. The state of Pennsylvania has decided to remove environmental information from its site. Risk Management Plans, which provide information about the dangers of chemical accidents and how to prevent them, have been removed from the website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry dropped from its website a report on chemical site security which notes that "security at chemical plants ranged from fair to very poor" and that "security around chemical transportation assets ranged from poor to non-existent."
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has also issued a new statement of policy that encourages federal agencies to resist Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. .... The new Ashcroft doctrine rejects this "foreseeable harm" standard and instructs agencies to withhold information whenever there is a "sound legal basis" for doing so. "As with many of the Bush Administration's new restrictions on public information, the new policy is only peripherally related to the fight against terrorism," notes Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists. "Rather, it appears to exploit the current cir stances to advance a predisposition toward official secrecy."
The new climate in America prompted an eerily close-to-life parody in The Onion, a humorous newspaper that publishes satirical false news items. In the parody, Ashcroft is quoted saying, "We live in a land governed by plurality of opinion in an open electorate, but we are now under siege by adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that tolerates no dissent. Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
