PrisonPlanet Forum

Geo-Politics / World War III => Middle East => IRAN => Topic started by: Phineas on September 06, 2007, 08:32:24 am

Title: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Phineas on September 06, 2007, 08:32:24 am
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4a_1189066259 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4a_1189066259)

whats that old saying? you can cook a frog slowly so it cant jump out of the pot?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Rock on September 06, 2007, 09:31:38 am
Wolf acts so naive and the other guy seems to be giddy with the news out of the cookie jar.  Hello, we know they are going to attack Iran.  Thats what they do these days,


Rock
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: thegarkoblog on September 06, 2007, 08:24:56 pm
Subject: FW: B52 accidently carrying nukes. Aboslutely IMPOSSIBLE.

please read below...my suggestion is we need to mobilize a group of veterans and other citizens around Barksley to protest and demand a full investigation
urgently. nothing is more important
who do  you know that can contact veterans or people in or around Texas that are concerned citizens?

think about it... I knew that there was going to be something happening yesterday because of what I have read here on Prison Planet and also because it was a "23" day. I dont believe in such crap.But the bastards who perpetrate such horrendous actions... they DO! So yesterday was 9+5+2+7=23.
So what happened? Nothing much. Just a bomber flew over the US with live nukes. Otherwise it was a normal day.

Remember that at the first GOP debate, candidates were asked what they thought was the worst moral crisis in America right now and Ron Paul said that it was that the neo-cons on the stage with him were keeping the option of nuclear strike against Iran on the table!

Now based on what follows there are two possible explanations as to what occured yesterday.. the official story that it was somehow an accident or mistake which is impossible.
Or the real explanation... that it was the first mobilization of nuclear arms against Iran!

Now what happens if we get veterans, Granny Warriors, other concerned citizens, Cindy Sheehan and whoever else out there to protest around Barksley, demanding to know what the f**k is going on?
We may just shed some light where it might blow the lid off of some horrendous plans that could go very mainstream very big and their plans could crumble!

Alex Jones is in Texas! Let's get out there and do something effective. What's the other choice?

here is the rest of the info sent to me by a friend of mine who I have not gotten clearance from to use his name...
 
 
As a former Security Specialist in the United States Air Force.  I was trained to gaurd Nuclear weapons and other nuclear components.  After I read the article about the B52 loaded with 6 nuclear warheads and no one knew until it landed has made me very suspicious.  Based on my experience and training and understanding security procedures relating to these high priority resources.  Without going into things I can't talk about due to the classified nature of security requirements for priority military resources I will only say this.
 
THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE OCCURED.  THERE ARE SO MANY LAYERS OF SECURITY THERE IS JUST NO WAY THAT KNOW ONE KNEW NUKES WERE NOT ON BOARD THAT AIRCRAF.  SOME OF YOU MAY ALREADY KNOW THIS AS IT WAS REPORTED ON PRISONPLANET.COM, THAT BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE IS PART OF THE AIR MOBILITY COMMAND AND IS A LAUNCHING POINT FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.  SO CONSIDERING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THIS INCIDENT TO OCCUR WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, ONE MUST ASK, WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?  IS THE MILITARY PLANNING ON CONDUCTING OPERATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  AND IF SO, DID SOMEONE WHO WAS PRIVY OF THIS INFORMATION TIP US OFF TO THE FACT CAUSING IT BE EXPOSED?  NOT TO BE AN ALARMEST BUT THIS POSSIBILITY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Bossgator on September 07, 2007, 07:59:23 am
thegarkoblog,

Thanks for the info. Most people know somebody, somewhere, that is in the position to confirm or dispute pretty much anything. Your source could be real valuable, but we need more than just a post that you typed. See if you can get something from your contact that can lend solid credibility.

We all know this story is not something to overlook, however, there are more than enough persons out there that get a kick out of posting stuff to make them selves look cool. Current affairs are WAY TOO IMPORTANT to have people saying stuff that can't be verified. All that does is make our efforts look real bad, and no one will take us serious.

From my past military days, I know for a fact that EVERY action has policy and proceedures that are in a manual somewhere, and each has it's own unique DD (Department of Defense)/AF form number assigned to it. This is how the military keeps track of everything!

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/formsprogram.htm
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/forms-pubs/

Have your source provide their MOS/Job Title, and related AF proceedures on weapons handling type stuff.

For example:

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-2B-52V3.pdf
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: thegarkoblog on September 07, 2007, 08:49:55 am
first off, if i am wrong and my source is wrong, it does not make us look less credible because my purpose is to get answered what should be on the lips of every citizen of the world right now in relation to this incident...
wtf?
and if the military can provide a plausible answer that is different then ok.
but if they can't then think about what we are possibly preventing here and how exposed the military could be if we can't get a plausible answer from them.
so nothing to lose, everything to gain.
by the way, here is the credentials of the guy that Alex got his story from...
Biography
Larry C. Johnson is the Managing Partner and founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. BERG that specializes in counter terrorism and money laundering investigations. Prior to forming BERG, Mr. Johnson worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (1985-1989) and the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim (1989-1993).
Since 1994 Mr. Johnson has helped script terrorism exercises for the U.S. military forces that have the counter terrorism mission.

Mr. Johnson also has served as an instructor for the U.S. State Department's Anti-Terrorism Training Program, where he has lectured on Current Terrorist Threats and Trends and on International Accords for Combating Terrorism to officials from more than 45 countries. Mr. Johnson has directed or participated in the forensic audits of banks and casinos Latin America, tested procedures and systems for detecting and preventing money laundering, and directed the forensic audit of a multi-million dollar business suspected of money laundering in the Colon Free Zone of Panama.

Mr. Johnson manages and directs BERG Associates investigations of international fraud and product counterfeiting, which has resulted in the confiscation of products worth one million dollars, fines totaling $500,000, and criminal penalties for the offenders.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: thegarkoblog on September 07, 2007, 08:59:08 am
In response to Saddam Hussein's attacks against Kurds in northern Iraq, the US military -- spearheaded by B-52Hs from the 2nd Bomb Wing -- conducted a missile attack against military targets in southern Iraq on 03 September 1996. Operation Desert Strike opened on 31 August as a quick response to Iraqi military activity against Kurdish safe havens as four B-52Hs from Barksdale's 2nd Bomb Wing deployed on a 16-hour mission bound for Guam, half-way across the Pacific. Less than a day after their arrival in Guam, two B-52s, loaded with CALCMs [Conventional Air-launched Cruise Missile], launched for the Persian Gulf. The bombers from the 2nd Bomb Wing flew more than 14,300 miles across the United States and the Asia/Pacific region before launching 13 conventional air launched cruise missiles at Iraqi targets. The B-52s began their attack from Pacific Air Forces's Andersen AFB, Guam. The distance involved - more than 13,600 miles from Andersen to the launch point and back - made air refueling essential during the 34-hour operation. Air Mobility Command [AMC] KC-10s from Travis AFB, Calif., and McGuire AFB, N.J.; six AMC KC-135s from Fairchild AFB, Wash.; and eight PACAF KC-135s from Kadena Air Base, Japan, supported the aerial refueling.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/2bw.htm
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Servant of Truth on September 07, 2007, 03:45:24 pm
I concur totally with the above posts.The people need to moblize and demand a full investigation ASAP.Obviously they are moving nukes in place for something...something probably involving nukes (duh).6 of them thats quite alot.Of course it was known the warheads were on the plane,it was definetly NOT no accident.I guess somehow the wrong (or right) people learned about it and were able to go public with the knowledge,god bless them.However the question remains,why the hell are they moving nukes at all.Do they plan to use them perhaps? That would be my guess....altho i could be,and hope i am, wrong.


Not a good time to be living in a major metropolitan city in America.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dan on September 07, 2007, 08:44:21 pm
Let us hope you are wrong.  I also am ex military, and have assisted in the handling of conventional weapons.  I have also been in place to see the handling of nuclear missiles.  Trident missiles to be exact.  The layers upon layers of protocol in place, if for no more than because of the monetary value of the weapon, is ridiculous.  What probably happened is Someone on the inside moved or switched the live nuke with the disabled nuke missiles and when the checks where being done on the redundancy layers for accountability, some lonely E-1 or E-2 noticed something was amiss and sounded the whistle.

This allowed the military to cry mistake and start pointing fingers.  If the military found out that it had actually accidentally moved nukes without proper authorization, they would have dealt with it internally and not let it get to the public.  The egg on their faces is to great.  Now the public doesn't trust them to handle the weapons.

Or maybe that is what they want.  So they can say that one will come up missing one day and then oops.

We will see.

I know what I know. 

This is BS
 >:(

Dan
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Fiatlux on September 08, 2007, 05:42:19 am
Reading the comments on this thread, all of the knowledge of protocol and so on, this does not look like a mistake. It looks rather like an intelligence signal. Psyopts perhaps?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Rock on September 11, 2007, 10:29:23 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html



WASHINGTON —  A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.

The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

"The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said.

Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically."

The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration.

Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries.

If the Bush administration moves forward with such a designation, sources said, it would be an indication that Rice agrees that Burns' approach has failed. Designation of such a large Iranian military institution as a terrorist entity would also be seen, sources said, as laying the groundwork for a public justification of American military action.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: renegade357 on September 11, 2007, 11:36:48 pm
This is the same ploy used to destroy Iraq. It is getting old. They have been planing the attack on Iran for awhile now but nukes have nothing to do with it but it sells to idiots.Remember the WMD's. They war in Irag is over, the place is destroyed but the neocons need an excuse to stay so hey the war is not over but we will win someday. A surge here, less attacks there, dam it's getting old. If you believe this after Bushwacker said the war on terrorism would last 100 years.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Sonja on September 12, 2007, 01:49:52 am
So I suppose the next move is to designate the Germans as 'cowards" like we did the French in the upswing to Iraq? That should be an interesting 'sell'.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on September 12, 2007, 06:47:50 am
Very clerpoint of view !

Visit :

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11599 (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11599)
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: OWN-the-NWO on September 12, 2007, 01:42:38 pm
lol they used the exact title of this thread for the header of the article on the sites

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_officials_begin_crafting_iran_bombing_plan.htm
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 12, 2007, 04:20:22 pm
Sane- You know it is coming, we have to have a European fall guy.  To say, "If only the (insert country) would listen to reason, we would be able to form a consensus and thus accomplish ...."  you get the idea.

You would think that they would have learned from their mistakes and modify the plan, but obviously they don't see it as a mistake and therefore, feel that this is a good plan.

If we invade Iran...Pakistan is going to erupt into a civil war and the crap is going to hit the fan, mark my words.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 12, 2007, 04:54:52 pm
Sane- You know it is coming, we have to have a European fall guy.  To say, "If only the (insert country) would listen to reason, we would be able to form a consensus and thus accomplish ...."  you get the idea.

You would think that they would have learned from their mistakes and modify the plan, but obviously they don't see it as a mistake and therefore, feel that this is a good plan.

If we invade Iran...Pakistan is going to erupt into a civil war and the crap is going to hit the fan, mark my words.

If we invade Iran...

THIS COUNTRY WILL ERUPT IN CIVIL WAR!!!!!!!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: TINT on September 12, 2007, 10:31:45 pm
I love the false dichotomy being presented on all MSM because Germany has backed out of sanctions we now only have 2 choices, an oil embargo or military strikes.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Fiatlux on September 13, 2007, 03:31:09 am
And remember the China card. Late last year the US signaled China that the US might bomb Iran's oil lines if China began dumping US currency....
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Fiatlux on September 13, 2007, 06:39:23 am
any one willing to step forward and signal us to the meaning? Care about Liberty? Care to be a giraffe?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on September 13, 2007, 07:07:18 am
Read the article and also have a look at the top quality comments:



http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/12/3803/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/12/3803/)

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 13, 2007, 07:56:48 am
Fox analyst: Germany's actions leave us 'no choice' but to bomb Iran David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday September 12, 2007
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Fox_US_makes_Iran_bombing_plan_0912.html

According to Fox News, advisers are telling the White House that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, and as a result officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer.

"A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime," Fox reported on Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney told Fox, "Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ... They've forced us into the military option."

"I think the option should initially be tit-for-tat," McInerney went on. "For every explosively formed projectile from Iran that goes off in Iraq, two go off in Iran, no questions asked."

"The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign," he continued. "Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back." McInerney described such a bombing campaign as "easy" and spoke enthusiastically of the weaponry involved, including "a new massive ordnance penetrator that's 30,000 pounds, that really penetrates ... Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate." Although introduced by Fox merely as a military analyst, McInerney has been prominent for several years as an advocate of war against Iran and chairs the advisory council of the hardline Iran Policy Committee, known for its backing of the anti-Iranian terrorist group, MEK. McInerney was quoted in February 2005 as saying, "[Bush] doesn't have any choice. "He understands [the Iranians] are the king of terror right now. They are striving for nuclear weapons that can get into the hands of terrorists, and then it's too late."
#
Excerpts from Fox article:
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council. Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.
#

FULL ARTICLE AT THIS LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html)

The following video is from Fox's America's Newsroom, broadcast on September 12.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 13, 2007, 07:59:37 am
Petraeus' Subordinate: Yes, We Are Arming Sunnis
By Spencer Ackerman - September 12, 2007, 2:34 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004169.php

On at least three occasions that I counted during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, Gen. Petraeus flatly stated that the U.S. is not providing weapons to the Sunni tribal fighters who, over the past year, have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq. On Monday I noted how the U.S. was giving the tribes money that they used to buy weapons, making Petraeus' assurance precious and legalistic.

But it turns out that earlier this year, U.S. commanders weren't so defensive about the terms of their deal with the tribes. Here's Major General Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. troops in northern Iraq, on those terms in June:
[Question] (on camera): Will the assistance or the coordination with these former insurgent groups extend to arming [them] or helping them out in logistics in any sense?

GEN. BENJAMIN MIXON, U.S. REGIONAL COMMANDER IN IRAQ: It certainly will. We have seen this in counterinsurgency operations before, using local nationals, if you will, arming them, forming them into scouts, if you will. And that's the primary role that we want to use them in. They know the territory, they know the enemy.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: qbit on September 13, 2007, 10:02:23 am
anyone else read the abovetopsecret.com article that one of those 6 nukes went missing...
http://www.rense.com/general78/missn.htm

or have verification of that from a source that doesn't also promote every other unprovable missile-ray-beam-alien theory?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: THX1138EB4 on September 13, 2007, 06:08:16 pm
Check your news radars for reports over the last few months about Russia flexing it's muscles with military poisturing.

The have been testing weapons and recently claimed it had targetted it's missiles towards the West. The USA's actions pretty much compells the Russians to take a defensive stance. The building of the missile defence system breaks agreed nuclear protocol. Also, I keep reading about the US developing Starship Trooper style mini Nukes.

These are both banned by treaty.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Stan on September 13, 2007, 11:50:56 pm
Cool, special forces. I know I wouldn't feel antagonised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard running around in my country. This should be a fun few months........n't.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on September 15, 2007, 08:17:42 am
Stopping the next war

By Patrick J. Buchanan

09/14/07 "WND" -- --- President Bush has won the Battle of September.

When he turns over the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009, there will likely be as many U.S. troops in Iraq as there were when Congress was elected to bring them home in November 2006.

That is the meaning of Gen. Petraeus' recommendation, adopted by President Bush, that 6,000 U.S. troops be home by Christmas and the surge of 30,000 ended by April. Come November 2008, there will likely still be 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Will this make America safer, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked. "I don't know," answered the general. An honest answer. None of us knows.

The general did know, however, that "a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences."

So we are trapped, fighting a war in which "victory" is not assured and perhaps not attainable – to avert a strategic disaster and humanitarian catastrophe should we walk away.

While the posturing of the Democrats, using Petraeus as a foil for their frustration and rage, was appalling, it is understandable. For, as this writer warned the day Baghdad fell, this time, we really "hit the tar baby."

What has the war cost? Going on 3,800 U.S. dead and 28,000 wounded. More than 100,000 Iraqis are dead; 2 million, including most Christians and much of the professional class, have fled. Millions have been ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods where their families had lived for generations.

Once the most advanced country in the Arab world, Iraq has been devastated and is coming apart. Sectarian, civil and tribal war has broken out. Al-Qaida has a presence. And it is a fair prediction that when the Americans depart, they will have fought the longest war in their history, only to have replaced the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a Shia dictatorship aligned with Iran.

Across the region, the situation appears bleak. In Pakistan, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself. Bin Laden is sending out tapes. Gen. Musharraf, who rules a nation of 170 million with atom bombs, is floundering. The Taliban have made a comeback. As our allies have left or are leaving Iraq, including the Brits, so, too, the NATO allies in Afghanistan are wearying of the struggle.

In the United States, the war has taken its toll, as do all no-win wars. With the cost of the two wars closing in on $1 trillion, we are as divided as we were during Korea and Vietnam.

As Truman fell to 23 percent after firing Gen. MacArthur, and was drubbed in New Hampshire, and LBJ broken after Tet and dropped out, Bush has seen his support fall from near 90 percent at "Mission Accomplished" to near 30 percent. Approval of his war leadership is virtually nonexistent.

Gen. Petraeus is trusted; his commander in chief is not.

To the cost of our dead and wounded must be added the near-breaking of the U.S. Army, the estrangement of our allies and the pandemic hatred of America across the Arab world.

As for the "cakewalk" crowd that accused opponents of the war of lacking in patriotism, they never repented of their demagoguery. Despite the pre-invasion propaganda they pumped out about Saddam's awesome weapons and ties to 9/11, or their assurances that U.S. troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, like Paris in '44, and their prediction that a democracy would arise in Iraq to which Islamic nations would look as a model, they have never been called to account.

Now they are back with a new enemy for America to attack.

This time the target is Tehran – and once again, they have the ear of this most ideological and unreflective of presidents.

Speaking to the American Legion, Bush used rhetoric against Iran equal in bellicosity to anything he used on Iraq before invading.

Iran "is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Iran "funds terrorist groups like Hamas. ... Iran is sending arms to the Taliban." Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology threatens to put the Middle East and Gulf "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

As Bush ratchets up the rhetoric, Russia, China and, reportedly, Germany are balking at new U.N. sanctions. That leaves Bush only the military option if he wishes to effect the nuclear castration of Iran. And Gen. Petraeus just provided him the rationale.

"It is increasingly apparent," said Petraeus, "that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

Petraeus' charge that Iran is fighting a "proxy war" against America comports with the new War Party propaganda line that we have been at war with Iran since 1979 and Bush needs no authorization from Congress to fight it more aggressively.

Congress gave Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. Any chance Congress will at least insist the administration come to Capitol Hill to make the case for the next war, on Iran, before Bush launches it? Probably not.

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books

Title: IRAN WAR IS ON!!!!!!!!! - Bush setting America up for war with Iran
Post by: bigron on September 16, 2007, 07:48:16 am
visit for article maps and details of US naval force in the persian gulf


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml)

Title: IRAN WAR IS ON!!!!!!!!! - Bush setting America up for war with Iran
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 07:50:34 am

Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 3:20am BST 16/09/2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.    
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/16/wiran116.jpg)

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail. 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. In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces. Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon. The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".  He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."    
Possible flash points: Click to enlarge
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/16/wiran116a.gif) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/16/wiran116abig.gif)
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. 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. Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad. The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran. A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President. The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board. 
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/16/wiran116b.gif)
"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with." The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war". Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill. The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen. The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran. "One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 07:58:46 am
www.c-span.org

C-SPAN in their morning call in show quoted 10 news articles to let the viewers know that the war is a foregone conclusion.  They followed this by showing various AEI panel discussions discussing how evil Iran is.  One of these discussions included Michael Ledeen talking about his wonderful book, "Iran Time Bomb."  You might remember Ledeen as the one who lied to get us into Iraq.  Well I can tell you one thing, he definitely has a proven track record for swindling the US out of money and lives based on lies and manipulations.

If he is involved, C-SPAN is probably accurate in letting us know this is a foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: xereau on September 16, 2007, 08:04:52 am
Where on this page is this info?

The word "Iran" was found 0 times searching your link.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:13:18 am
You have to watch the live stream from the link.  C-SPAN1 live stream video/audio.

They spent 30 minutes (at least since i caught it late), now they have a senior RAND analyst talking about Russia.

I think Putin is not pleased with this war plan.

Since the Iraq War was a total disaster to put the money supply connected to the Petro (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=85340), Cheney has sold the NeoCons another fake bill of goods that Iran is the key to saving the dollar.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:17:20 am
Time is running out to avert war with Iran
Guardian Unlimited, UK - 14 hours ago
A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a massive threat to global peace and security. It would trigger a deadly arms race drawing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, ...
Reports: Germany Wavers, US Revives Iran Planning The Gate - National Journal
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,,2170383,00.html

Report: US wants war with Iran
Ynetnews, Israel - 3 hours ago
The United States Department of Defense has developed a list of up to 2000 bombing targets in Iran, the Sunday Telegraph reported Sunday. ...
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=46ed0f9914e80487&ei=-yvtRoauH4rWqQOcvoTfCg&url=http%3A//www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3449757%2C00.html&cid=1120400009

Bush setting America up for war with Iran
Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - 13 hours ago
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 ...
'Pentagon listed 2000 Iranian targets'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml

Iran makes its US opposition clear
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL - 46 minutes ago
... unacceptable in a war run by professional soldiers. Iran's overt support and funding of those who behead innocents, use innocents to protect themselves, ...
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070916/OPINION/709160805/1029

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:20:39 am
IRAN PUSHES THE RHETORIC: 'White House anti-Iran attempts failed'
Iranian elites are now clearly working with Cheney and Halliburton in pushing more money to the Military Industrial Complex.  The Iranian administration knows their days are numbered and have worked a deal with Cheney and the neocons (the same connections fromn the 1980s Iran-Contra dealings)...

_________________________
'White House anti-Iran attempts failed'
Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:34:18
 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=23355&sectionid=351020101
Iranian MP Reza Talaei-Nik


An Iranian MP says the White House has failed in using both economic sanctions and the threat of military strike as tools against Iran.

Member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Majlis, Reza Talaei-Nik, said the vigilance of the Iranian nation and its reliance on the high position of supreme jurisprudence are factors in the Islamic Republic's victory in the face of pressures and conspiracies of the enemies over the past 28 years.

Referring to the statements of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in the Friday prayers sermons, Talaei-Nik said, "The vigilant and united people of Iran support the officials in the management of preemptive and defensive measures against the enemies' plots."

The Iranian parliamentarian noted that the Islamic Republic has developed its potential and power to curb any hostile actions against the country.

"Given the failure of their anti-Iran attempts, the Untied States and the Zionist regime have resorted to a combination of strategies to confront the Islamic Republic," he added.

Talaei-Nik elaborated that White House officials have failed to attain their goals through various tactics such as the threat of military strike, economic sanctions, psychological war or persuasion of Iran to move in line with US policies in the region.

AO/JG/BGH
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: xereau on September 16, 2007, 08:25:17 am
It is time for a massive march on Washington to avert this catastrophe from happening.

The "10 Million Man March" has a nice ring doesn't it?

In all seriousness, no one is going to stop this from happening unless YOU, ME, ALL OF US decide that this is where this madness ends.

This will start World War III, which if you know anything about the long term plan of the elites pulling all of the strings, has been the plan all along.

It has to end here.  It has to.  This is the end.  One way, or another.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:25:37 am
Britain's Channel Four Propaganda Machine Now Churning for Iran War
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6777
by Azathoth Global Research, September 14, 2007 Indymedia UK


Last night, Jon Snow of C4 News grilled the Iranian President on his state's 'quest for nuclear weapons' and his alleged 'holocaust denial'. The interview was so aggressive and one sided, that it recalled the grilling of Tariq Aziz on BBC in the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003.

JON SNOW - CORPORATE ATTACK DOG

August is a bad month for marketing. But not so September, which is a traditional kick off month for all kinds of corporate advertising campaigns. And lo and behold, last night's Channel 4 News fitted the bill perfectly for 'selling' the White House's up gearing campaign for the next war, this time on Iran. Launching into a full frontal assault on an affable, polite Ahmadinejad, C4 'celebrity reporter' Jon Snow repeatedly accused his government of 'seeking nuclear weapons' (no evidence provided, but never mind about such trifles, and of course the West has a divine right to accumulating many thousands of the things without any questions being asked), then insisted the dastardly Iranians were 'destabilising and promoting violence in Iraq' (no irony intended, obviously), 'deliberately killing British soldiers' (hey, come on), then when all these failed to get results, repeatedly attacking him personally as a 'Holocaust denier'. Now while Ahmadinejad's views on the scale of the Holocaust might well be questionable, the crux of his argument actually boiled down to 'why should the Palestinians have to suffer for these atrocities, which had nothing to do with them?' - a reasonable point of view, surely.

SPLIT SCREEN

Most disturbing of all however was a split screen (that C4 for inexplicable reasons interposed on the above attack dog style 'interview'), the other half screen repeatedly showing wholly unrelated and suggestive newsreel of Iranian test missiles being fired off in the desert, or on parade. Why? Is this legitimate 'documentary news' practice? What earthly purpose could it serve? In fact, it seems our 'free and fair' media has well and truly sunk to the manipulative propagandist levels of Pravda in the 1970s. UK media is becoming an increasingly blatant mouthpiece for its corporate and state/ super-state sponsors.

Footnote:

People may have noticed a recent press story about 'Russian aircraft invading British air space in cold war style aggressive missions'. No, not just that, but also implying that these intruders may be 'nuclear armed'. However, the allegedly contemporary photo shots that accompany the 'story' actually show ancient turbo-prop Tupelov 95 'Bear' bombers, perhaps a state of the art Soviet warhead delivery system in the early 1960s, and definitely used no later than the 1980s as spy planes after being withdrawn from front line service. Even more bizarrely however, and uncommented on in any of our lapdog media sources, is the fact that these pictures (taken last week, they would have us believe) clearly show old Soviet RED STARS on the tail. Erm, correct me if I am wrong but didn't the USSR cease to exist 15 years ago?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:26:24 am
Iran: War and surprise
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18116
The heart of the United States' autumn flurry over Iraq is to shift focus towards Iran. From openDemocracy.

Image: Bakir Rahmanovic, ISN

By Paul Rogers for openDemocracy.net (14/09/07)

The fallout of the war in Iraq has helped to make the George W Bush administration one of the least popular in US political history. The domestic political repercussions are a matter of intense debate and speculation as the campaign for the presidential and congressional elections in November 2008 gets underway.

It is likely that the outcome of the elections will be greatly affected by the progress of United States efforts in Iraq and the experience of its military forces. The most recent of a number of assessments of the US's current predicament - the reports, and testimony before Congress, of General David Petraeus (the US military commander in Iraq) and Ryan Crocker (the US ambassador there) - have drawn intense media coverage in this respect.

There is a danger here, however: too narrow a focus on the domestic political implications of the Iraq imbroglio creates a tendency to ignore the fact that Iraq (and the US story there) is only one element in a broader regional picture (see Volker Perthes, Iraq in 2012: four scenarios, 11 September 2007). If the accumulated US effort in Iraq is seen in this light, a deeper logic might be discerned in which not Iraq, but Iran, is coming to play a central role in United States calculations.
A grand narrative

This underlying shift is apparent in five recent developments, which can be regarded as components in a reassembling "narrative" designed to direct public attention from Baghdad towards Tehran. The fact that several of the story's elements are in tension with each other does not prevent it from acquiring great potency for its architects (see Baghdad spin, Tehran war, 6 September 2007).

The first component is the transformation of a complex insurgency in Iraq into a simplistic war against al-Qaida. President Bush and others have repeatedly identified the insurgency within Iraq as being al-Qaida-inspired; this means that the activity role of a wide range of other Sunni groups opposed to the US occupation, and the even larger role of Shi'a militias.

The second part of the narrative is the highlighting of the military "surge" strategy, the deployment since February 2007 of six successive contingents of additional US forces on a monthly basis.

The surge was the Bush administration's answer to the two main proposals of the James A Baker / Lee H Hamilton report of December 2006: regional diplomatic engagement (including with Iran) and progressive troop withdrawals. The repudiation of the defeatist outlook of Baker/Hamilton (whose report, it is easy to forget, was anticipated as much as that of General Petraeus) was for the White House and its supporters the forceful and correct response to a continuing threat to America.

The new strategy has been confronted with severe problems on the ground in Iraq, making its authoritative justification a vital political requirement. The third element of the narrative enters here: the Petraeus report and congressional hearings (the Crocker testimony is more problematic for the administration, given its bleaker conclusions on the Iraqi government's political progress).

The evidence presented in Petraeus's digest of US experience in Iraq is remarkably selective in its reference-points. Moreover, it tends to ignore the evidence (revealed, for example, in an ABC/BBC poll in Iraq reported on 10 September that records a marked increase in Iraqis' sense of domestic insecurity. True, there has been some decrease in violence in Baghdad and in Anbar province; but violence has increased elsewhere, especially in Diyala province where US troops were withdrawn in 2006 to be replaced by Iraqi security forces. In the south, British forces have given up on Basra city, and even in Baghdad itself the security situation remains dire.

The Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) is one of the few organizations providing detailed, local assessments of Iraq to western audiences. In a recent report, IWPR describes the chaotic situation in Baghdad schools: hundreds of teachers have been murdered in the past year and there have been numerous kidnappings of students (see Iraq Crisis Report 231, 30 August 2007). Many of the city's 21,000 schools lack water and sanitation facilities, are crumbling through disrepair, and have to be regularly closed.

A Unicef program to reconstruct a schooling system that was once one of the best in the region has had to be put aside in order for resources to be focused on the growing numbers of displaced people.

The fourth part of the narrative highlights the prospect of a withdrawal of some United States forces by 2008 as a further indication of military progress. Any such move is unlikely to be substantive; Petraeus himself anticipates a US military presence in Iraq for up to a decade, and expects that - even allowing for such a withdrawal - there will be no decrease in the troop numbers that were in the country prior to the surge.

In any case, the aim of a staged return of some US troops to the homeland in 2008 is dependent on a marked improvement in the performance of the Iraqi security forces. This remains deeply problematic. The US head of the Iraq Assistance Group, Brigadier-General Dana Pittard, is only one of those warning against any early termination of the surge, partly on the grounds that it would take years for Iraqi forces to be able to take over.

The reality, then, is that there is unlikely to be any major redeployment of US forces away from Iraq. But that is not the point. The relevant factor is the need to create an impression of some success in Iraq, which can be made to carry a convenient double implication: stay the course, and troop reductions are in sight.

The fifth component of the overall story makes an effective entrance at this point. What difficulties remain in Iraq are very largely the responsibility of Iran. Thus, in US administration statements and interviews, and editorial pieces by the White House's strongest supporters, it is notable that the putative role of Iran in fomenting unrest and violence is being greatly elevated.

Indeed, by some strange alchemy Iran is now integrated into the al-Qaida phenomenon, thereby unifying America's two great enemies in the region - the historic and persistent threat posed by revolutionary Iran and the more recent al-Qaida challenge. It has not yet come to the point of blaming Iran for the 9/11 atrocities, but that could yet happen.
All points east

The increasingly tense relationship with Iran was reflected in the testimony given to the US Congress on 10-11 September 2007 by both the general and the ambassador. David Petraeus went so far as to talk of a "proxy war" with Iran, and Ryan Crocker accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state". Behind them, a neo-conservative media chorus, whose voices include experts from the American Enterprise Institute and the ever-reliable Weekly Standard , have poured even more anathemas than usual on Tehran and its works.

More than rhetoric is involved. The Iranians have again insisted that they will not halt their efforts to enrich uranium for (they claim) civil nuclear-power use. In response, the Bush administration plans to return to the United Nations Security Council to demand tougher sanctions. Russian and Chinese opposition will mean that little progress will be made in this direction. But the effort will have symbolic value to the administration, and in any case will not detract from the White House's notable efforts to forge a link between Tehran's "interference" in Iraq and its nuclear plans.

The US intends to build a number of fortified checkpoints on highways linking Iran and Iraq; it also plans by November to construct a new base on the frontier, with living quarters for 200 US troops, as close as six kilometers to Iranian territory. In a separate move, up to 350 British troops are being assigned to border patrols along stretches of the border from which they were withdrawn some months ago.
The Iranian telescope

These developments, also part of the change in the emphasis of the whole conflict, provide support to the case of those analysts who believe that conflict between the United States and Iran is highly likely before mid-2008.

There are, equally, many arguments against this - not least a recognition among the more thoughtful sections of the American military that once a war with Iran starts, it will (like the war in Iraq - even if the wars will have a very different character) continue for years. The evaluation of these different perspectives needs to take account of what is happening on the Iranian side.

There exists, for example, a danger that military escalation in the Persian Gulf region could be deliberate provoked. This could come from the American side, but the greater likelihood at present is that elements within the Pasdaran-e Inqilab (Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps) will take such a step. This need not have the approval of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime, though its probable effect would be to unify Iranian opinion behind the Islamic Republic's leadership.

Since the end of the war with Iraq in 1988, the Revolutionary Guard has acted as an "army within an army", with its own barracks, recruitment and logistical organization; it also runs its own businesses. Many Iranians regard the organization (even in a muted and cautious way) as demonstrating a particular brand of corruption. This is registered within and around the Revolutionary Guards as a sense that the force has "gone soft" since the revolution's early, heroic days and the war with Iraq, and lost much of its support and status as a result.

The conclusion reached by some is that the guard badly needs a new cause: something that will return put it centre-stage once more, encourage renewed recruitment and, above all, regain national status by demonstrating its role in safeguarding the revolution. A possible, attractive option would be to engineer a confrontation with the United States. This could be achieved through overt cross-border operations, or (more likely) through some kind of operation in the crowded waters around the Straits of Hormuz.

The seizure of the fifteen British sailors and marines in March-April 2007 may - although it took place at the other end of the Gulf - be a model for an operation that could be conducted against the US navy (see Sanam Vakil, Iran's hostage politics, 2 April 2007).

Another possibility is that a claim of US aggression into Iranian territorial waters could be met by a Revolutionary Guards' speedboat operation against a US warship or even a supply vessel. In the context of the vehement anti-Tehran atmosphere that the Bush administration and its cheerleaders have been cultivating, Washington would have no choice but to respond to such provocation. Indeed, many of those in or around the White House, particularly those close to vice-president Dick Cheney, would welcome such a development.

The logic of the US' reassembled narrative about the situation in Iraq and its own role there is increasingly to depict Iran not simply as a problem in relation to Iraq, but as a problem in its own right. This may indeed appear to have a certain political convenience as the elections of 2008 approach. In other respects, the period ahead is starting to look ominous.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:28:05 am
This will be the first war from one country to another where it is not even discussed, but just accepted while the citizens go on shopping and watching OJ scandals.  this is so nuts i cannot even fathom what is coming next.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on September 16, 2007, 08:54:33 am
This will be the first war from one country to another where it is not even discussed, but just accepted while the citizens go on shopping and watching OJ scandals.  this is so nuts i cannot even fathom what is coming next.

im just waiting for the excuse, its like that bill hicks sketch,

elites -  "pick up the gun."
freedom - "i dont want to."
e - "pick up the gun"
f - "but you'll shoot me if i do"
e - "pick...up...the...gun"
f - *slowly reaches down to pick up the gun*
**BANG BANG BANG***
e - "you all saw him, he had a gun"
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 08:55:04 am
As reported in the past by Sy Hersh, Cheney's only tactic to battle Shiites is to funnel funding to Al-Qaeda.  Now that the Iran War is on, direct funding of Billions of Dollars (besides the $122 Billion that Congress recently funded - the troops saw less than $10 billion) to Al-Qaeda is also a forgone conclusion.

This is how they play the game.

6th Anniversary of 9/11 and American Citizens do not revolt against direct funding of Al-Qaeda terrorists. 

Propoganda warfare incorporates the greatest Weapons of Mass Destruction ever created, this is beyond belief!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 09:00:56 am
It is time for a massive march on Washington to avert this catastrophe from happening.

The "10 Million Man March" has a nice ring doesn't it?

In all seriousness, no one is going to stop this from happening unless YOU, ME, ALL OF US decide that this is where this madness ends.

This will start World War III, which if you know anything about the long term plan of the elites pulling all of the strings, has been the plan all along.

It has to end here.  It has to.  This is the end.  One way, or another.

I cannot even contemplate the insanity that will engulf us if we do not end this now.  I mean they are just attacking a country with our money, lives, respect, culture, energy, heritage, and freedoms. 

When they use these things to attack another, they are lost.  Gone forever.  The next deception will be 10 times worse.  This is only the beginning.

9/11 was supposed to be a solution for the sub-elites that signed on to finally rid the world of evil

Iraq War was supposed to be a solution to the economy

Iran War is supposed to be a solution to the Iraq failure.

Can you imagine what the solution to the Iran War will be?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 09:03:54 am
Right now on C-SPAN2
AEI Michael Ledeen's Book:
"THE IRANIAN TIME BOMB"

www.c-span.org

GUYS...

This is the guy who lied us into Iraq!!!!!!!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 09:07:50 am
Iran Time Bomb: Ticking, Ticking
http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/herman/herman3.html
by Douglas Herman

I watch a lot of trash TV, too much for my own good.  I watched the entire "Fear Factor: Couples," I'm ashamed to admit, simply because I enjoyed watching weird or embarrassing stunts performed by simple folks in pursuit of big bucks. Somewhere in all that weirdness, I'm convinced, is a moral lesson or a telling reflection of 21st Century American values.  Plus I wonder where they get all those bugs.   

Occasionally I watch "The Newshour," on PBS, which is worse than watching "Fear Factor" but better than watching the thinly-disguised propaganda news programs of Fox, CNN or MSNBC.  Lately the Neocon spokesmen have been making a daily appearance on "The Newshour," pleading the administration case for preemptive air strikes on Iran--followed by God-only-knows what outcome. Indeed, US Marine Scott Ritter, who was right about Iraq, says another US attack on Iran is set for June.

The unspoken problem with this latest Neocon plot, I mean, plan, is that Iran, unlike the defanged Iraq, has the capacity to respond militarily, and who would blame them?  Another factor to fear is that an attack on Iran would unite that nation to a single-minded purpose.  Unlike the divisive Iraqis, the Iranians have few ethic divisions for undercover Mossad or CIA operatives to exploit.  A third factor rarely mentioned is the geographic location of Iran.  Look at any map of the Persian Gulf.  Would you, as the captain of an oil tanker or US Navy aircraft carrier, want to dodge Sunburn anti-ship missiles in the Strait of Hormuz?

The narrowness of the strait--a chokepoint--presents some nightmare scenarios the armchair admirals and air marshals of the Neocon brigade conveniently ignore when pimping for a new war.  Imagine a sinking an American aircraft carrier or two, and the predictable outcry from folks here at home to retaliate with even more missiles and bombs against Iran, and suddenly the world's on the brink of nuclear war.  Indeed, the entire, Strangelovian scenario of trading missiles with Iran would make the present Iraq war seem like an afternoon concert with Jimmy Buffet.

How or why so many American citizens can sit silently and watch, without an outcry of dissent, while so many incompetent US officials with divided loyalties make absurd foreign policy, never ceases to amaze me.  Very likely the placid citizens of Germany or Japan also watched silently, while the military regimes began to launch aggressive wars for territory and scarce resources during the 1930s.  Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should heed the words of Admiral Yamamoto: "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain, I will run wild and win victory upon victory.  But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."   

In the first six hours or six days or even six weeks of a war with Iran, we too shall run wild with victory, but as in Iraq, if the war continues after that, we have no expectation of success. The folly of imperial overreach almost always means the economic or moral collapse of a society, and Japan, Germany and Italy were no exceptions.  You don't need an advanced degree from a war college to comprehend the historical folly of imperial war.  Yet our Neocons scarcely seem to have studied history or warfare.

Exactly how many US Navy ships do the Neocons consider expendable?  Have any critics besides Mark Gaffney mentioned the anti-ship missiles that likely await ponderous, floating targets in the duckpond of the Persian Gulf?  "In 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war," wrote Gaffney, "the USS Stark was nearly cut in half (photograph) by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also saw the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors."  (Read the entire account of the USS Stark with additional photos here)

Mark Gaffney paints a pretty grim picture that our Neocon warhawks chose to ignore. "The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes 'violent end maneuvers' to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system."  Consider the damage to the USS Stark, in the adjacent photograph, and now multiply it many times over, with oil tankers afire and Navy ships and crewmen lost.  If chaos in the Gulf is the true intention of the American oiligarchs and Zionists who ostensibly run our country now--and I believe it is--then certainly a missile war with Iran that escalates to unlimited warfare seems likely. 

Where are the retired US Navy captains and admirals who should certainly recognize the folly of instigating a showdown with the Iranians, ostensibly to further Israeli hegemony in the Persian Gulf?  Indeed, where are the American news commentators, US Senators and Congressmen who should be asking these most pertinent of questions:  Who benefits? What are the long term costs to the US?  What are the risks of this conflict spiraling out of control?  How many American deaths are worth the risk?  What happens if oil shipments from the entire Persian Gulf are cut?  What exactly do we hope to accomplish?  What are the worst-case scenarios of such a mad scheme? 

Curiously, we seldom hear any of these questions discussed on "The Newshour," nor do we hear any criticism of the folly of the plan itself by the mainstream American news media.  By contrast, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian woman, wrote, "Independent organizations are essential for fostering the culture of human rights in Iran. But the threat of foreign military intervention will provide a powerful excuse for authoritarian elements to uproot these groups and put an end to their growth . . . . American hypocrisy doesn't help, either. Given the longstanding willingness of the American government to overlook abuses of human rights, particularly women's rights, by close allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, it is hard not to see the Bush administration's focus on human rights violations in Iran as a cloak for its larger strategic interests." 

And those strategic interests are: Oil, Israel and Empire, in no particular order, as one editor so succinctly put it.  God help a nation hijacked by a minority of policymakers with an agenda that appears to run counter to the greater good. 

The Iran time bomb is ticking, ticking, and the danger is closer to home than anyone realizes.
_______________________________--

This author's view is quick contradictory to Michael Ledeen's and his book of a similar title which he is talking about right now on C-SPAN (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=6576.msg26441#msg26441)
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Cruise4 on September 16, 2007, 11:37:47 am
Is it time to say, what the hell, lets club together and buy a big ferry. We'll all float about avoiding the trouble spots and let the stupids and the elites fry each other. I'M SICK OF IT.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 11:42:19 am
Network - Mad as hell
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/90ELleCQvew/2.jpg)
5 min - Jan 19, 2007 -    (68 ratings)   
Network 1976 Beale Mad as hell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ELleCQvew)

SCRIPT

Program Director: Take 2, cue Howard.

Beale: I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.

We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be!

We all know things are bad -- worse than bad -- they're crazy.

It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone.

I want you to get mad!

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.

All I know is that first, you've got to get mad.

You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"
            (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/movieposternetwork2.jpeg)
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Phineas on September 16, 2007, 12:14:29 pm
we cant reach the larger populous only the mainstream media can, the internet only aims to a small percentage of that populous ...i think we should start a guilt campaign with celebrities, make em feel bad somehow because they are not speaking out like someone called charlie sheen...they are the only ones that can reach that amount of people because we know the news presenters sure as hell wont say anything, they value there jobs too much like celebrities but some of the most well known celebrities are that rich that they dont need anymore work ie they have nothing to lose....ppl like alex jones can only tell so many after that its the publics job to inform others (celebrities included) i dont see enough of these so called citizens speaking out they are too worried about there multi million dollar pays getting cut off, cowards.

and i dont know if it will be the start of ww3 maybe if north korea gets involved seen as itself as the next target on the invasion list (the infamous axis of evil speech) and decides to take action before its too late ..the US are going to bomb the shit out of all of irans vital facilities and infrastructure including the nuclear compounds in result alot of innocent men women and children dieing ...this might enrage russia to a point of anger higher than the cold war seen as iran is a close nuclear ally and they may be forced into some provocative actions ...this wont be any where near the level of the docility of an iraq invasion they are not a country to be taken lightly ...i could almost see them letting some tac nukes off in israel a few months or weeks after a ground invasion commences.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: jannerbob on September 16, 2007, 12:15:11 pm
Just analyze for one minute George Bush,s recent claim that Iran are the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world.So the obvious place to start is Hezbollah.Hezbollah came about because of Israels occupation of Lebanon and they were a legitimate freedom fighting movement.Israel still occupy the Lebanese Sheba Farms so they are still legitimate.Only six countries in the world class Hezbollah as a terrorist group.Hezbollah are not terrorists while they are occupied.So now lets look at Hamas.They are the legitimate elected officials voted for in fair democratic elections.They are also occupied by Israel,therefore they are a legitimate freedom fighting group.So who else do Iran support,Al Qaeda,the Taliban,the Muslim Brotherhood,Fatah,Ansar al Sunna,NO! because they are all wahhabist Sunni,s.Wahhabist Sunni,s will never ever deal with Shiites because Shiites are classed as heretics and infidels.So the terrorists who turn into suicide bombers are all Sunni,s.There is no instance of a Shiite suicide bomber.
What country do the islamists in Iraq come from then if they are not Iranian.Saudi Arabia is the answer the same country Bin Laden and all the suicide pilot patsies came from.Who supports the Sunni islamists?George Bush does including Al Qaeda.You see the country who is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world is not Iran it is America.Do you believe the people killing American soldiers in Iraq are Iranian,so you don,t think it might just be some really pissed off Iraqi,s.Now the obvious point is that Iranians and Iraqi,s speak a different language from each other.Iranians are Persians Iraqi,s are Arabs.Everything Bush has ever told you is a lie and the lies just keep coming.When is enough going to be enough?when a nuke falls on you maybe,well that is an inevitability with your current regime.How will you cope with 20 million dead Americans because once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle it will never go back in again.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Phineas on September 16, 2007, 12:30:34 pm
because once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle it will never go back in again.
scary but so true ...bush really doesnt have an F'n clue  >:(
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: combine2k on September 16, 2007, 12:36:49 pm
I believe it is only a matter of time until the SCO gets involved here.

Scary thought, WW3 is truelly at hand.    How depressing.
Title: US Fiscal Armageddon: a pretext for invasion of Iran and WWIII
Post by: Dig on September 16, 2007, 03:37:19 pm
UPDATE: It seems that this obviously planned fiscal crisis is being spun for another side benefit.  Since Cheney's plan to invade Iraq as a way to stave off a recession failed (not for NWO - it was part of their plan), Cheney is now using the crisis to drum up borderline Neocon support for the Iran War.  Greenspan already faux-confessed to what we always knew, the Iraq War was a con to try and salvage the petro dollar (hiding a deeper lie to force US into instigating WWIII).  Cheney/AEI/Terrorist Industrial Complex/Energy are now using the fear inspired by the obvious devaluation of the dollar to win support "fixing" the Iraq problem

Their wonderful fix is a full scale invasion into Iran. 

I am not saying the crisis does not exist, but these sub-elites get "creative" and think they are the masters.  These ego trips have them support insane agendas that make no sense, but allows them to retain their titles as sub-elites.  So just beware that this is a financial crisis and it is bad, but it can be dealt with if we have sound people at the top like Dr. Ron Paul.  If we continue to dump liquidity down an open pipe or lower interest rates to devalue the dollar, then an invasion in Iran makes just about as much sense.  The problem is that this planned invasion will definitly mark us as the instigators into WWIII and will truly destroy more than a recession ever could.

Every sub-elite group is made to think they are on the top.  So they tell the NeoCons that we need the Iran war to get the economy (Greenspan lies to them to confirm the Petro-Dollar scam).  But they are not told the Iran war is a total trap 10x worse than the Iraq plan.

The oil was the trap to get the US into war.  Since the Iraq war, Opec countries have been dropping the dollar, not before.  It expedited our fiscal issues.  The whole thing was a con, even the Neo-Cons got conned and they are about to get NeoConned again with the Iran War. 

Just remember whenever they say "because of X we need to do Y" it means that Y will cause X !
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Rufus Shinra on September 16, 2007, 04:25:11 pm

I think Putin is not pleased with this war plan.


Sorry for going slightly off-topic here but..,

...Does Putin actually have any real power, and a will of his own?
Does he RUN anything, could HE start or do anything?

Or is he just like Bush, or even more controlled?

I've been trying to "figure Russia out" and I constantly fail.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on September 16, 2007, 04:55:26 pm
the way i rationalise putin, russia, china, bush, europe etc is,

they all eat from the same cake.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: clint on September 16, 2007, 04:56:30 pm
Why do people think a strike against iran will cause world war 3?

Just curious. It didn't start ww3 when we hit iraq.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on September 16, 2007, 05:11:20 pm
clint, the reason people say WW3 is because of Iran's ties to Russia and China. if the US was to go into Iran, it would be very close to the last straw for Russia and China. they would have no choice but to more forcebly oppose the US and EU etc

it ties into oil and money, in case you couldnt guess lol

Russia and China are being forced onto the back foot by the aggressive foriegn policy of the US and the globalisation of the UN and EU

look into OPEC, look into the pipe lines in that region, look into the borders of Iran etc

if we go into Iran, the world will start to have to choose sides, and that is where many people see WW3 coming from
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Sub-X on September 17, 2007, 05:00:17 am
Another point to Clint is that Bush could have said Saddam was the hamburgler and be justified attacking Iraq as the shock and horror of 9/11 was fresh in the minds of the world.
I recently seen George Bush on t.v. talking about the evils of Iran and their nuclear capabilities and reminded so much of the same crap that was said about Iraq and i couldn't help wonder after everything thats happened how could anybody believe anything this mans says especially about this sort of thing.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Hawkwind39 on September 17, 2007, 05:59:10 am
On BBC world there was an announcement that "we should be prepared for war with iran"
Didn't catch who the source was.  But thats what was said.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 17, 2007, 07:07:12 am
They are not even going to bother with a false flag, they are just going to go in.  This will further our now obvious title of "the country that started WWIII"

we are the new nazi's and when we surrender according to plan, the country will  be ripped apart just like they did to germany

can't wait for the propoganda:

"look what happens when you let a country be free"

"look what happens when you allow too many rights"

"socialist and communist systems to distribute wealth is the only solution"

"look what happens when you allow capitalist pigs to consolidate wealth"

"one human, one tax"

And as Roger Waters wrote..."and now the final solution can be applied"


That will be the solution to this staged Chaos

If any of you neocons do not realize you are being swindled, Greenspan just sold you out!  Greenspan just leaked your entrusted secret (which is also a lie).  Greenspan is supporting the ideal that neocons have gone too far and must be reigned in.  WAKE UP, you are being set up!  You think that you are the only ones they tell secrets to in order to give an upper edge in political battles?  The NWO "employee of the month" has changed and you ain't it.  They will bring you down, just as they brought you up.  It happens that quickly.  You need to be coming out, let every compartmentalized secret be known.  They are betting on you thinking it is precious and important.  It is just another lie to create your personal "good fight."  It is the same mind control technique they use with suicide bombers (AOL/GE/Murdoch produce these videos to show how evil muslims are, but the techniques can be applied to anyone and we perfected them via MK Ultra-WTF - WAKE UP!).  They make you feel as if you are the secret to justice and goodness by doing something unheard of like agreeing to $122 billion in unchecked funding for an illegal war, or signing an amnesty bill.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Hawkwind39 on September 17, 2007, 07:29:07 am
Patiently staged chaos courtesy of the 3 stooges and their intricate web of matey mates -

Prescott Bush,
George H.W. Bush &
George W. Bush


I pity their eternal souls and pray for the people of earth right now.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: jannerbob on September 17, 2007, 07:52:07 am
Why do people think a strike against iran will cause world war 3?

Just curious. It didn't start ww3 when we hit iraq.

Look at your world atlas.Egypt,Israel,Saudi Arabia,Iraq,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,India.One way or another America influences if not controls these countries and with Iran, control over the whole of middle Eastern oil.The problem now is you are sitting on China,s doorstep.Not only that,you are sitting on Russia's doorstep.Now what is happening today with Russia and China.They are working more and more closely,they have joint war games.They deny a military union but only a fool would not believe Russia and China do not have a pact where they will fight as allies.So imagine that Russia and Chinese troops are now camped on your borders with Canada and Mexico.Would you do something about that?Just mass of numbers suggest that you should pull your necks in and fast.One other point is you assume Russia are finished,well they still have thousands of nukes pointing straight at you and a man like Putin who makes Bush look like Britney Spears.China and Russia have massive investments in Iran they are not going to give them up.An attack on Iran will stir up the mother of all hornets nests and the first country to get it will be my country England,Putin is working overtime to wind us all up.Don,t put any faith in Europe being up to much as allies.In Afghanistan the German troops refuse to fight after dark.If you use nukes on Iran a nuke will land on you,then where do you go.Not only will it spark WW3 it will spark the end of time,something a lot of people positively welcome.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 17, 2007, 08:04:45 am
Why do people think a strike against iran will cause world war 3?

Just curious. It didn't start ww3 when we hit iraq.

Iraq was Hitler's Poland

Tehran will be our Stalingrad

Look how well we are doing fighting people with no electricity, water, homes, food. (of course this is because we are funding both sides to make sure we never leave)

Just imagine the next escalation and the deceptions needed to justify it, everything is being expedited, nothing makes sense absent a nefarious conspiracy.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 17, 2007, 08:08:57 am
If you use nukes on Iran a nuke will land on you,then where do you go.Not only will it spark WW3 it will spark the end of time,something a lot of people positively welcome.

We will all go together when we go. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2mwrxRQyA)
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Sasha on September 17, 2007, 09:23:48 am
Of course the Globalist-Monopolist bankers are planning on going after Iran.  They said they were going to, signed the documents, and handed them over to their dogs in the US DoD,... same as it has been for over a century of American history now.

In his book War is a Racket, 1935, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (with whom many in these forums will likely be well aquainted) opens with these lines:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.... [and] the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it.... I must face it and speak out."


He goes on to state in "Time of Peace," Common Sense, Nov 1935:

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.

I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested....

I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.... I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents...."


We are still fighting against his adversaries, yet now they have a much greater strangle hold of the positions of power and influence.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Bossgator on September 17, 2007, 04:27:21 pm
I feel Sane that I just might have to agree. Those of us who are actually paying attention and digging up the truth out of all the BS out there know full well this just cant take place without MAJOR MAJOR backlash. Even the war hawks know the military can do only so much, and only common sense says we just can't go smack the Iranians around at will. Iraq was not the military might they were claiming, not even close, but Iran is a whole different ballgame. Saddam was a rogue of sorts playing by his own rules that happen to have apalace full of cash, so greed gave him supporters. However, Iran has been "playing by the rules" you might say with his supporters, like Russia, China, Syria, etc, and his supporters, I don't think, will just stand by and let the US pound on their friend Achmedidmydad in Iran. I just don't see that happening. This may be a reason for the supposed recent military manuvers by Russia. I'm not sure though because the stories about the Russian Bears violating airspace appear to be in question to some degree. Man, this whole disinformation thing really works to cloud reality! Makes it damn hard to know what to believe.One thing that does seem clear, the US striking Iran will come with heavy consequences!And consider the latest out of Washington... http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0917dreamwar0917.html

A military route to citizenshipPlan for undocumented youths stirs debateDaniel GonzálezThe Arizona RepublicSept. 17, 2007 12:00 AM
Hundreds of thousands of undocumented-immigrant youths could become eligible to join the military to offset shortages of qualified recruits under a bill pending in Congress.Intense public opposition forced the Senate in June to abandon an immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for undocumented youths.The proposal still has a strong chance of passing if backers in Congress are successful in attaching it to the annual defense-authorization bill this fall.The Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act would allow undocumented high-school graduates to gain citizenship if they either attend college for two years or serve two years in the military.Undocumented immigrants now are not permitted to serve.Military analysts say the DREAM Act would help the armed forces find qualified recruits, whose numbers have dwindled because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.Some immigrant groups, however, say the DREAM Act amounts to a "de facto draft."
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 17, 2007, 04:34:40 pm
Also Bossgator concerning Iraq v. Iran:

Iraq had no russian/chinese ties (that i am aware of)

We were bombing Iraq for 10 years.

And it is not just Iran we are going to bomb Damascus (neocon wet dream) to make sure israel is involved
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Bossgator on September 17, 2007, 05:15:32 pm
Yep, I believe your spot on. Both Russia and China really seemed indifferent to Iraq, though they did a little grumbling at first, you know the ol "Good Cop Bad Cop" thing. Russia apparently had some monetary double dealings with Iraq, but apparently that was minimal.

Iran and Syria? That is another story altogther!
Title: IRAN WAR IS ON!!!!!!!!!! CNN RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 17, 2007, 05:25:22 pm
Was just on CNN:

Top energy companies are told to cease all investments in Iranian infrastructure.

Also on MSNBC: Tucker has a panel pushing the argument..."So what if we fight a war for economic reasons, how is this a problem?"

BOSSGATOR, we already used Israel as a proxy to bomb Syria WAKE UP, Syria is included!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Phineas on September 17, 2007, 10:14:20 pm
i predict we are going to see iran bombed before the 22nd of sep
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: BASSFIRE on September 17, 2007, 11:27:30 pm
im just waiting for the excuse, its like that bill hicks sketch,

elites -  "pick up the gun."
freedom - "i dont want to."
e - "pick up the gun"
f - "but you'll shoot me if i do"
e - "pick...up...the...gun"
f - *slowly reaches down to pick up the gun*
**BANG BANG BANG***
e - "you all saw him, he had a gun"

This made me laugh and shiver with fear at the same time.  ;D
Title: Red October: Russia, Iran and Iraq
Post by: Dig on September 18, 2007, 08:40:18 am
Red October: Russia, Iran and Iraq
By George Friedman
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=295418

The course of the war in Iraq appears to be set for the next year. Of the four options we laid out a few weeks ago, the Bush administration essentially has selected a course between the first and second options -- maintaining the current mission and force level or retaining the mission but gradually reducing the force. The mission -- creating a stable, pro-American government in Baghdad that can assume the role of ensuring security -- remains intact. The strategy is to use the maximum available force to provide security until the Iraqis can assume the burden. The force will be reduced by the 30,000 troops who were surged into Iraq, though because that level of force will be unavailable by spring, the reduction is not really a matter of choice. The remaining force is the maximum available, and it will be reduced as circumstances permit.

Top U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and others have made two broad arguments. First, while prior strategy indeed failed to make progress, a new strategy that combines aggressive security operations with recruiting political leaders on the subnational level -- the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province, for example -- has had a positive impact, and could achieve the mission, given more time. Therefore, having spent treasure and blood to this point, it would be foolish for the United States not to pursue it for another year or two.

The second argument addresses the consequence of withdrawal. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summed it up in an interview with NBC News. "And I would note that President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum. That is what is at stake here," she said. We had suggested that the best way to contain Iran would be to cede Iraq and defend the Arabian Peninsula. One reason is that it would release troops for operations elsewhere in the world, if needed. The administration has chosen to try to keep Iraq -- any part of it -- out of Iranian hands. If successful, this obviously benefits the United States. If it fails, the United States can always choose a different option.

Within the region, this seems a reasonable choice, assuming the political foundations in Washington can be maintained, foundations that so far appear to be holding. The Achilles' heel of the strategy is the fact that it includes the window of vulnerability that we discussed a few weeks ago. The strategy and mission outlined by Petraeus commits virtually all U.S. ground forces to Iraq, with Afghanistan and South Korea soaking up the rest. It leaves air and naval power available, but it does not allow the United States to deal with any other crisis that involves the significant threat of ground intervention. This has consequences.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki attended a meeting of the Iranian-Russian Joint Economic Commission in Moscow over the weekend. While in the Russian capital, Mottaki also met with Russian Atomic Energy Chief Sergei Kiriyenko to discuss Russian assistance in completing the Bushehr nuclear power plant. After the meeting, Mottaki said Russian officials had assured him of their commitment to complete the power plant. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said, "With regards to the Bushehr power plant, we have reached good understanding with the Russians. In this understanding a timetable for providing nuclear fuel on time and inaugurating this power plant has been fixed." While the truth of Russian assurances is questionable -- Moscow has been mere weeks away from making Bushehr operational for the better part of the last three years, and is about as excited about a nuclear-armed Iran as is Washington -- the fact remains that Russian-Iranian cooperation continues to be substantial, and public.

Mottaki also confirmed -- and this is significant -- that Russian President Vladimir Putin would visit Tehran on Oct. 16. The occasion is a meeting of the Caspian Sea littoral nations, a group that comprises Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. According to the Iranians, Putin agreed not only to attend the conference, but also to use the visit to confer with top Iranian leaders.

This is about the last thing the United States wanted the Russians to do -- and therefore the first thing the Russians did. The Russians are quite pleased with the current situation in Iraq and Iran and do not want anything to upset it. From the Russian point of view, the Americans are tied down in an extended conflict that sucks up resources and strategic bandwidth in Washington. There is a similarity here with Vietnam. The more tied down U.S. forces were in Vietnam, the more opportunities the Soviets had. Nowadays, Russia's resources are much diminished compared with those of the Soviets -- while Russia has a much smaller range of interest. Moscow's primary goal is to regain a sphere of influence within the former Soviet Union. Whatever ambitions it may dream of, this is the starting point. The Russians see the Americans as trying to thwart their ambitions throughout their periphery, through support for anti-Russian elements via U.S. intelligence.

If the United States plans to stay in Iraq until the end of the Bush presidency, then the United States badly needs something from the Russians -- that they not provide arms, particularly air-defense systems, to the Syrians and especially the Iranians. The Americans need the Russians not to provide fighter aircraft, modern command-and-control systems or any of the other war-making systems that the Russians have been developing. Above all else, they want the Russians not to provide the Iranians any nuclear-linked technology.

Therefore, it is no accident that the Iranians claimed over the weekend that the Russians told them they would do precisely that. Obviously, the discussion was of a purely civilian nature, but the United States is aware that the Russians have advanced military nuclear technology and that the distinction between civilian and military is subtle. In short, Russia has signaled the Americans that it could very easily trigger their worst nightmare.

The Iranians, fairly isolated in the world, are being warned even by the French that war is a real possibility. Obviously, then, they view the meetings with the Russians as being of enormous value. The Russians have no interest in seeing Iran devastated by the United States. They want Iran to do just what it is doing -- tying down U.S. forces in Iraq and providing a strategic quagmire for the Americans. And they are aware that they have technologies that would make an extended air campaign against Iran much more costly than it would be otherwise. Indeed, without a U.S. ground force capable of exploiting an air attack anyway, the Russians might be able to create a situation in which suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD, the first stage of a U.S. air campaign) would be costly, and in which the second phase -- battle against infrastructure -- could become a war of attrition. The United States might win, in the sense of ultimately having command of the air, but it could not force a regime change -- and it would pay a high price.

It also should not be forgotten that the Russians have the second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The Russians very ostentatiously announced a few weeks ago that their Bear bombers were returning to constant patrol. This amused some in the U.S. military, who correctly regard the Bear as obsolete. They forget that the Russians never really had a bomber force designed for massive intercontinental delivery of nuclear devices. The announcement was a gesture -- and reminder that Russian ICBMs could easily be pointed at the United States.

Russia obviously doesn't plan a nuclear exchange with the United States, although it likes forcing the Americans to consider the possibility. Nor do the Russians want the Iranians to gain nuclear weapons. What they do want is an extended conflict in Iraq, extended tension between Iran and the United States, and they wouldn't much mind if the United States went to war with Iran as well. The Russians would happily supply the Iranians with whatever weapons systems they could use in order to bleed the United States a bit more, as long as they are reasonably confident that those systems would not be pointed north any time soon.

The Russians are just as prepared to let the United States have a free hand against Iran and not pose any challenges while U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq. But there is a price and it will be high. The Russians are aware that the window of opportunity is now and that they could create nightmarish problems for the United States. Therefore, the Russians will want the following:

In the Caucasus, they want the United States to withdraw support for Georgia and force the Georgian government to reach an accommodation with Moscow. Given Armenian hostility to Turkey and closeness to Russia, this would allow the Russians to reclaim a sphere of influence in the Caucasus, leaving Azerbaijan as a buffer with Iran.

In Ukraine and Belarus, the Russians will expect an end to all U.S. support to nongovernmental organizations agitating for a pro-Western course.

In the Baltics, the Russians will expect the United States to curb anti-Russian sentiment and to explicitly limit the Baltics' role in NATO, excluding the presence of foreign troops, particularly Polish.

Regarding Serbia, they want an end to any discussion of an independent Kosovo.

The Russians also will want plans abandoned for an anti-ballistic-missile system that deploys missiles in Poland.

In other words, the Russians will want the United States to get out of the former Soviet Union -- and stay out. Alternatively, the Russians are prepared, on Oct. 16, to reach agreements on nuclear exchange and weapons transfers that will include weapons that the Iranians can easily send into Iraq to kill U.S. troops. Should the United States initiate an air campaign prior to any of this taking effect, the Russians will increase the supply of weapons to Iran dramatically, using means it used effectively in Vietnam: shipping them in. If the United States strikes against Russian ships, the Russians will then be free to strike directly against Georgia or the Baltic states, countries that cannot defend themselves without American support, and countries that the United States is in no position to support.

It is increasingly clear that Putin intends to reverse in practice, if not formally, the consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union. He does not expect at this point to move back into Central Europe or engage in a global competition with the United States. He knows that is impossible. But he also understands three things: First, his armed forces have improved dramatically since 2000. Second, the countries he is dealing with are no match for his forces as long as the United States stays out. Third, staying out or not really is not a choice for the United States. As long as it maintains this posture in Iraq, it is out.

This is Putin's moment and he can exploit it in one of two ways: He can reach a quiet accommodation with the Americans, and leave the Iranians hanging. Conversely, he can align with the Iranians and place the United States in a far more complex situation than it otherwise would be in. He could achieve this by supporting Syria, arming militias in Lebanon or even causing significant problems in Afghanistan, where Russia retains a degree of influence in the North.

The Russians are chess players and geopoliticians. In chess and geopolitics, the game is routine and then, suddenly, there is an opening. You seize the opening because you might never get another one. The United States is inherently more powerful than Russia, save at this particular moment. Because of a series of choices the United States has made, it is weaker in the places that matter to Russia. Russia will not be in this position in two or three years. It needs to act now.

Therefore, Putin will go to Iran on Oct. 16 and will work to complete Iran's civilian nuclear project. What agreements he might reach with Iran could given the United States nightmares. If the United States takes out Iran's nuclear weapons, the Russians will sympathize and arm the Iranians even more intensely. If the Americans launch an extended air campaign, the Russians will happily increase the supply of weapons even more. Talk about carpet-bombing Iran is silly. It is a big country and the United States doesn't have that much carpet. The supplies would get through.

Or the United States can quietly give Putin the sphere of influence he wants, letting down allies in the former Soviet Union, in return for which the Russians will let the Iranians stand alone against the Americans, not give arms to Middle Eastern countries, not ship Iran weapons that will wind up with militias in Iraq. In effect, Putin is giving the United States a month to let him know what it has in mind.

It should not be forgotten that Iran retains an option that could upset Russian plans. Iran has no great trust of Russia, nor does it have a desire to be trapped between American power and Russian willingness to hold Iran's coat while it slugs things out with the Americans. At a certain point, sooner rather than later, the Iranians must examine whether they want to play the role of the Russian cape to the American bull. The option for the Iranians remains the same -- negotiate the future of Iraq with the Americans. If the United States is committed to remaining in Iraq, Iran can choose to undermine Washington, at the cost of increasing its own dependence on the Russians and the possibility of war with the Americans. Or it can choose to cut a deal with the Americans that gives it influence in Iraq without domination. Iran is delighted with Putin's visit. But that visit also gives it negotiating leverage with the Americans. This remains the wild card.

Petraeus' area of operations is Iraq. He may well have crafted a viable plan for stabilizing Iraq over the next few years. But the price to be paid for that is not in Iraq or even in Iran. It is in leaving the door wide open in other areas of the world. We believe the Russians are about to walk through one of those doors. The question in the White House, therefore, must be: How much is Iraq worth? Is it worth recreating the geopolitical foundations of the Soviet Union?
Title: IAEA Chief Warns Against Striking Iran !!
Post by: bigron on September 18, 2007, 09:45:10 am


IAEA Chief Warns Against Striking Iran

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/17/international/i053833D54.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/17/international/i053833D54.DTL)

Monday, September 17, 2007

(09-17) 15:10 PDT VIENNA, Austria (AP) --


The chief U.N. nuclear inspector urged Iran's harshest critics Monday to learn from the Iraq invasion and refrain from "hype" about a possible military attack, saying force was an option of last resort.


Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking outside a 144-nation meeting of his International Atomic Energy Agency, invoked the example of Iraq in urging an end to the threats of force against Iran — most recently over the weekend by France.


"I would not talk about any use of force," said ElBaradei, noting that only the Security Council can authorize such action. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."


He was alluding to a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such weapons have been found.


"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that require we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said, adding that his agency had no information "the Iran program is being weaponized."


"We need not to hype the issue," he told reporters.


On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.


Speaking on RTL radio, Kouchner said that if "such a bomb is made ... we must prepare ourselves for the worst," specifying that could mean a war.


Iranian state media lashed out at France on Monday, saying its officials have "become translators of the White House policies in Europe and have adopted a tone that is even harder, even more inflammatory and more illogical than that of Washington


The U.S. has refused to rule out the possibility of force against Iran if it continues to enrich. Still, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the U.S. administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.


On Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon sought to play down Kouchner's comments, saying "everything must be done to avoid war."


"France's role is to lead the way to a peaceful solution," Fillon said, while at the same time calling for the "the most severe sanctions possible against the Iranian government if it continues" with its disputed nuclear program.


Negotiations and two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy, but the U.S., its European allies and other world powers suspect the country is seeking nuclear weapons.


Alluding to the U.S. and its Western allies, Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh accused unnamed countries of forcing the international community onto the "unjustified, illegal, deceptive and misleading path ... by imposing restrictions and sanctions."


And he again ruled out scrapping Iran's uranium enrichment program, telling delegates Iran would "never give up its inalienable and legal right in benefiting from peaceful nuclear technology."


ElBaradei called on nations critical of his last-ditch effort to entice Iran into revealing past nuclear activities that could be linked to a weapons program to wait until the end of the year — when the deadline for Iran to provide answers runs out.


"By November or December we will be able to know if Iran is acting in good faith or not," he said, suggesting that was the time to think of tougher diplomacy if needed — but not military action.


He also urged the declared nuclear weapons states — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — to set the example and reduce the incentive to proliferate by initiating "deep cuts in their nuclear arsenal."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/17/international/i053833D54.DTL
Title: Re: Red October: Russia, Iran and Iraq
Post by: JConner on September 18, 2007, 10:47:54 am
Excellent article, great assessment!

What's scary is the idea that some of the 'powers that be' here in the US are closet communists anyway (just barely in the closet, at that), such as the Clintons (who are waiting in the wings).

The 'powers behind the powers that be' (the 'invisible masters' if you will) will of course be holding the purse strings of all parties involved...

Could this be the crafting of a new up and coming 'cold war' to replace the failing 'war on terror'?

Remember folks - the Designers' plan is for world populations to be disaffected with 'national rule' - sovereign nationality creates unending conflict and brinkmanship and therefore national sovereignty must be surrendered for a global 'United Federation' type of governance...

And let's not forget China, also waiting in the wings...

And we the people caught in the crossfire, wondering where our sleeping Strength is...
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Rufus Shinra on September 19, 2007, 12:53:40 am
i predict we are going to see iran bombed before the 22nd of sep

I actually doubt that... I wouldn't be so very surprised if it happend though.

It's just that it would be more "normal" for some other event to happen first, then war.

But they may just go ahead and attack...
It will be a very strange thing, to say the least.

It's will be interesting to see how the economy and stock market will tie in to the war,
or if it will tie in at all, and if there's a crash before the 21st... a lot of stuff going on..  ???
Title: IRAN WAR False Flag still an option, but pre-empive strike ruled out...
Post by: Dig on September 19, 2007, 11:02:28 am
Foreign policy expert says Bush has ruled out first-strike on Iran; Worries about 'accidental' conflict John Byrne
Published: Wednesday September 19, 2007
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Foreign_policy_expert_says_Bush_has_0919.html


Tells RAW he doesn't believe Bush is in the 'Cheney gang' yet. President Bush is not going to bomb Iran -- unless an "accidental" incident forces his hand, according to well-respected foreign policy moderate Steve Clemons, who laid out his case in Wednesday's Salon article, "Why Bush Won't Attack Iran." Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at New America Foundation and publisher of The Washington Note, says Bush has deviated from a Cheney-laid track to launch a first-strike on Iran, citing, as examples, frustrations that the vice president's aides are airing, a conversation with a journalist who sat in on a December 2006 strategy meeting, and private conversations with high-level foreign policy players. In a telephone conversation with RAW STORY Wednesday, Clemons emphasized that he wasn't arguing that there wouldn't be an American conflict with Iran. Rather, he believes that Bush has opted not to strike Iran in a first-strike scenario. His gravest concern, he said, was that the US might seize on an accidental incident -- such as a collision between a US and Iranian ship or a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran -- as a causis belli.

"A mistake in the Gulf where ships collide or US soldiers are attacked or Israel fires a low-level cruise missile attack against Natanz or there's a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran that results in the death of a high-ranking military or diplomatic official – any of these could spark a conflict," he said. Of the indications that Bush has thus far tabled a preemptive strike, Clemons believes "the most significant is that the Cheney wing feels that Bush is not on their side and they're frustrated with that. The fact that the Cheney wing feels they need to tie Bush's hands, 'end run' the president and remove the 'diplomatic course' from the field of options in front of the President is an indication that Bush hasn’t decided to bomb."Clemons cites a report by Time Magazine journalist and commentator Joe Klein, which spoke of a meeting Klein sat in on in December 2006.

Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were -- once again -- unanimously opposed to taking that course of action. Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B -- a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News.

"I think a classic war buildup that we had with Iraq is not possible for Iran," he continued. "There are too many inter-agency blocks."

"I'm not saying there won't be any war but nothing in Bush’s posture suggests he's really with the Cheney gang yet. But I do worry about the Cheney gang and the [ Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps]/Ahmadinejad crowd in Iran trying to precipitate a spark that produces a very fast escalation that circumvents most of Bush’s national security decisionmaking structure -- and that kind of war is something we should worry about. That's what I think could happen. "An 'accidental war' would escalate quickly and 'end run,' as Cheney aide [David] Wurmser put[ s] it, the president's diplomatic, intelligence and military decision-making apparatus," Clemons wrote in his Salon editorial. "It would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Increased CIA activity on the ground
RAW STORY has reported on alleged attempts by the Office of the Vice President to provoke Iran into a first strike situation as a pre-text for US strikes. Managing Editor Larisa Alexandrovna reported in August on alleged new activities by the Central Intelligence Agency, seen by some to suggest US escalating its attempts to provoke Iran. A senior intelligence official told RAW STORY that the CIA had stepped up operations in the region, shifting their Iran focus to ”other” approaches in preference to the “black propaganda” that Raw Story “has already reported on.” The source would not elaborate on what these “other” approaches are. At the time, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano would neither confirm nor deny that “other” operations were taking place.  “The CIA does not, as a matter of course, comment on allegations involving clandestine operations, despite the large amount of misinformation that circulates publicly on the subject," Gimigliano said.  RAW STORY revealed in June that Iran was being targeted by CIA activities promoting a “pro-democracy” message and that the agency was supporting overt “pro-democracy” groups. Clemons first revealed a battle between Cheney aides and those at the State and Defense Department in May. Supporting a pre-emptive strike, he said, was Cheney's office; opposing was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. "The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles)," he wrote.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dan on September 19, 2007, 11:27:36 am
I wouldn't be surprised if the US was not the ones who actually start the war with Iran.  If Isreal were to attack Syria, Iran has already stated that it will retaliate against Isreal if that happens.  If Iran attacks Isreal, then the US, as Isreals biggest allies, will just have to defend the innocent Isrealites.  It would not be portrayed as American dominance per say, but instead we would be 'protecting' our friends.


Of course the US supplies Isreal with mpst of their weapons and ammo.  And the US dumps a ton of money into that country every day.  So to say that the US has a huge political influence is not out of line.

Everyone wants to help a freind.
 :o

Dan
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Phineas on September 19, 2007, 05:23:02 pm
I actually doubt that... I wouldn't be so very surprised if it happend though.

It's just that it would be more "normal" for some other event to happen first, then war.

But they may just go ahead and attack...
It will be a very strange thing, to say the least.

It's will be interesting to see how the economy and stock market will tie in to the war,
or if it will tie in at all, and if there's a crash before the 21st... a lot of stuff going on..  ???

yeah it prob wont happen but im just going by the rhetoric of the neo con media, its propaganda is of the same levels prior to shock and awe add to that the put options betting on a stock market crash before the 22nd tells me that an invester out there knows it might be just around the corner..but who knows ..i hope im wrong ..maybe just israel itself will bomb iran without the help of the usa?
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: SpaceCommand on September 21, 2007, 02:07:27 am
If Iran fits into John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman, then the invariable task is reducing this near first world country into third world poverty. The punishment is for not accepting grotesque privatization and oil hegemony. $200 dollar a barrel oil and more destruction of the US economic position is the  goal of these globalists. Greenspan mentioned "Iraq is about Oil," but he fails to tell us "to keep oil off the market and increase short term profits with socially irresponsible exchange rate inflation."

The solution is to get the hedge funds out of the marketplace as it was years earlier, achieve at least a modicum of actual free market competitive enterprise, and keep those swimming pools and fine houses in reach of the general middle class.

Bill Clinton said "its the economy stupid," but you have to realize it is about every decision.

Solutions are probably far more easily done in the right hands than is possible in the wrong hands doing the opposite. Just as Jesus told us "you shall know by their fruits," the current police state mentality shows and discredits itself before our eyes. They are doing to a literate culture strategies that didn't even work on peasants eating pottage in the 11th century. Their hypnotic trance of television and psyops cannot support itself for very long. Most people are already far better informed than so many selected excerpts accredit.

The battle cannot be simplified to "good versus evil," alone, it is about sound thought, and transparency. It is about discipline and optimum transitional strategies. If "science fiction approaches," support Orwellian dystopias, then the same deep scenario technique also gains ample room for more favorable and exciting scenarios. The mindlessness of current elite preferences already shows cultural illiteracy if not outright stupidity and greed. The fact they need an armed madhouse to enforce their bankrupt solutions is evidence enough of the deficiency of their argument. "Where there is no vision the people perish."

Ron Paul's approach of more communication and nonintervention is a start into appropriate transitional strategies. We must study unforeseen cross impacts and remedy these things. More of the same contract fraud and privatization of an expanded war into Iran is a harbinger of economic insanity. You know the definition "doing the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different result." The current world situation is entirely causative within corporatism but its deep problem is general mindlessness. It is time to produce a nation and even a world of appropriate transitions, not a deep slide into tyranny but an expansion of everything that made the United States great. Constitutional freedoms are the golden goose, and we must save them.

The greedy elite keeps even more when the people are free and prosperous, but their wicked desperation will trap them in their own quagmire.
Title: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: This American on September 21, 2007, 08:52:26 am
 Good for You Columbia, Don't bow to Jewish Supremicist pressure to allow students to hear ONLY one side of the story. Let Iran's president SPEAK FOR HIMSELF----THEN students can judge themselves what he is really all about without having to hear secondhand filtered OPINIONS!!! -T.A.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Columbia Won't Cancel Ahmadinejad Speech
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092100483.html
Sep 21, 8:16 AM (ET)
 
NEW YORK (AP) - Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for "hate-mongering vitriol." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is traveling to New York to address the United Nations' General Assembly. He was scheduled to appear Monday at a question-and-answer session with Columbia faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum. City Council speaker Christine Quinn called Thursday for the university to rescind the invitation, saying "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Quinn said Ahmadinejad was coming to the city "for one reason - to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage." Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and called for Israel to be destroyed. His planned appearance at Columbia also was condemned by Jewish groups including the Jewish Defense Organization, which described Ahmadinejad as "the Hitler of Iran." Columbia spokesman Robert Hornsby said Thursday there was no plan to cancel the appearance, though the university dropped plans for an Ahmadinejad speech last year because of security and logistical problems. The decision came after a Jewish activist group expressed outrage over the invitation.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger, in announcing Ahmadinejad's upcoming appearance, described the event as part of "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate." He said the Iranian president had agreed to answer questions on Israel and the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's trip to New York ignited a debate this week over his rejected request to lay a wreath at ground zero. The State Department calls Iran a state sponsor of terror, and politicians and families of Sept. 11 victims were outraged that its president might visit the site of the 2001 terror attacks. Police rejected Ahmadinejad's request, citing construction and security concerns. In an interview scheduled to air Sunday on CBS'"60 Minutes," Ahmadinejad indicated he would not press the issue but expressed disbelief that the visit would offend Americans.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 23, 2007, 04:20:44 pm
CNN: The war with Iran has begun
(http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/sept07/230907CNN.jpg) (http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/230907CNN.htm)
Title: What Then?
Post by: blues on September 23, 2007, 07:09:23 pm
The consequences of any military strike on Iran are, overall unpredictable, and generally, guaranteed to be disastrous for the USA.

Our military analysts are really unsure what the Iranians themselves could do to us. There is a frightening possibility that Iran, with its hidden submarines and bases, could wipe out 1/4 of our navy with supersonic, uranium tipped cruise missiles. This includes 1/4 or more of our aircraft carriers (we only have about a dozen of them). We would never again find the funds to replace them. It is also quite possible that their missiles and far-flung forces could eliminate 90% of the oil pumping facilities in the Middle East. (Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be in very hot water, to put it mildly.)

The Russians and the Chinese are struggling for all of the Middle East oil. They happen to be winning at the moment. Putin and Hu are not stupid! They would not just sit idly by. The Russians can see the radar shadows of our stealth aircraft from space, and they could instantly tell hostile forces their exact location. Stealth B2s cost $2 BILLION each. The Russians could simply turn off the faucets of virtually all of Europe's energy. And it's going on October...

The Chinese could turn our dollars into bingo markers in a week. They could also snatch Taiwan in a flash. And all this is just for starters. China already has the resources of Africa (etc.) in its back pocket. And even India has a huge stake in this, and they are not quite as friendly to us as we are lead to believe. Every single one of these nations could turn the US internet, and our entire electronic infrastructure, into one vast blue screen, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Not to mention the fact that blowing up Iran's many reactors would cause the equivalent of 50 Chernobyl events that would directly hit... Russia, China, India, etc.

Let's just say that I have plenty of brown rice, blackeye peas, lentils, etc., on hand now. Remember too, the water companies run on Windows software. My bathtub is clean, and I keep bottles of Iodine on hand.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 23, 2007, 08:50:13 pm
Do they think we are just raw material for their WWIII meat grinder (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=1581.0)?

And when we ask questions we get publicly tortured by puppet cops at the orders of elite nazi police (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=7284.0)?

Another unproked war (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=134.0)?

Another one (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=135.0)?

When are they going to stop killing millions of innocents because Rothschild/Rockefeller want their NWO (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=130.0)?

When are we going to stop allowing our Congress to sanction torture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxa5XfR0p4)?

When are we going to speak out against this fascism (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=153.0)?

This is how we used to deal with fascism in the USA
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/tcx9BJRadfw/default.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw)

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious,
makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part;
you can't even passively take part,
and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels,
upon the levers, upon all the apparatus,
and you've got to make it stop.

And you've got to indicate to the people who run it,
to the people who own it,
that unless you're free,
the machine will be prevented from working at all!"


WE ARE NOT RAW MATERIALS

WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS!
Title: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 25, 2007, 07:32:07 am

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/ (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/)

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1

Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.
By Juan Cole

Sep. 24, 2007 | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.

The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.

Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.

There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.

The neoconservatives are even claiming that the United States has been at war with Iran since 1979. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this assertion is absurd. In the '80s, the Reagan administration sold substantial numbers of arms to Iran. Some of those beating the war drums most loudly now, like think-tank rat Michael Ledeen, were middlemen in the Reagan administration's unconstitutional weapons sales to Tehran. The sales would have been a form of treason if in fact the United States had been at war with Iran at that time, so Ledeen is apparently accusing himself of treason.

But the right has decided it is at war with Iran, so a routine visit by Iran's ceremonial president to the U.N. General Assembly has generated sparks. The foremost cheerleader for such a view in Congress is Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who recently pressed Gen. David Petraeus on the desirability of bombing Iran in order to forestall weapons smuggling into Iraq from that country (thus cleverly using one war of choice to foment another).

American hawks are beating the war drums loudly because they are increasingly frustrated with the course of events. They are unsatisfied with the lack of enthusiasm among the Europeans and at the United Nations for impeding Tehran's nuclear energy research program. While the Bush administration insists that the program aims at producing a bomb, the Iranian state maintains that it is for peaceful energy purposes. Washington wants tighter sanctions on Iran at the United Nations but is unlikely to get them in the short term because of Russian and Chinese reluctance. The Bush administration may attempt to create a "coalition of the willing" of Iran boycotters outside the U.N. framework.

Washington is also unhappy with Mohammad ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has been unable to find credible evidence that Iran has a weapons program, and he told Italian television this week, "Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community." He stressed that no evidence had been found for underground production sites or hidden radioactive substances, and he urged a three-month waiting period before the U.N. Security Council drew negative conclusions.

ElBaradei intervened to call for calm after French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said last week that if the negotiations over Iran's nuclear research program were unsuccessful, it could lead to war. Kouchner later clarified that he was not calling for an attack on Iran, but his remarks appear to have been taken seriously in Tehran.

Kouchner made the remarks after there had already been substantial speculation in the U.S. press that impatient hawks around U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney were seeking a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran. Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation probably correctly concluded in Salon last week that President Bush himself has for now decided against launching a war on Iran. But Clemons worries that Cheney and the neoconservatives, with their Israeli allies, are perfectly capable of setting up a provocation that would lead willy-nilly to war.

David Wurmser, until recently a key Cheney advisor on Middle East affairs and the coauthor of the infamous 1996 white paper that urged an Iraq war, revealed to his circle that Cheney had contemplated having Israel strike at Iranian nuclear research facilities and then using the Iranian reaction as a pretext for a U.S. war on that country. Prominent and well-connected Afghanistan specialist Barnett Rubin also revealed that he was told by an administration insider that there would be an "Iran war rollout" by the Cheneyites this fall.

It should also be stressed that some elements in the U.S. officer corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency are clearly spoiling for a fight with Iran because the Iranian-supported Shiite nationalists in Iraq are a major obstacle to U.S. dominance in Iraq. Although very few U.S. troops in Iraq are killed by Shiites, military spokesmen have been attempting to give the impression that Tehran is ordering hits on U.S. troops, a clear casus belli. Disinformation campaigns that accuse Iran of trying to destabilize the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government -- a government Iran actually supports -- could lay the groundwork for a war. Likewise, with the U.S. military now beginning patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, the possibility is enhanced of a hostile incident spinning out of control.

The Iranians have responded to all this bellicosity with some chest-thumping of their own, right up to the final hours before Ahmadinejad's American visit. The Iranian government declared "National Defense Week" on Saturday, kicking it off with a big military parade that showed off Iran's new Qadr-1 missiles, with a range of 1,100 miles. Before he left Iran for New York on Sunday morning, Ahmadinejad inspected three types of Iranian-manufactured jet fighters, noting that it was the anniversary of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 (which the Iranian press attributed to American urging, though that is unlikely).

The display of this military equipment was accompanied by a raft of assurances on the part of the Iranian ayatollahs, politicians and generals that they were entirely prepared to deploy the missiles and planes if they were attacked. A top military advisor to Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei told the Mehr News Agency on Saturday, "Today, the United States must know that their 200,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are within the reach of Iran's fire. When the Americans were beyond our shores, they were not within our reach, but today it is very easy for us to deal them blows." Khamenei, the actual commander in chief of the armed forces, weighed in as well, reiterating that Iran would never attack first but pledging: "Those who make threats should know that attack on Iran in the form of hit and run will not be possible, and if any country invades Iran it will face its very serious consequences."

The threat to target U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unveiling of the Qadr-1 were not aggressive in intent, but designed to make the point that Iran could also play by Richard M. Nixon's "madman" strategy, whereby you act so wildly as to convince your enemy you are capable of anything. Ordinarily a poor non-nuclear third-world country might be expected to be supine before an attack by a superpower. But as Mohammad Reza Bahonar, the Iranian deputy speaker of Parliament, warned: "Any military attack against Iran will send the region up in flames."

In the end, this is hardly the kind of conflagration the United States should be enabling. If a spark catches, it will not advance any of America's four interests in the Middle East: petroleum, markets, Israel and hegemony.

The Middle East has two-thirds of the world's proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas, and its fields are much deeper than elsewhere in the world, so that its importance will grow for the United States and its allies. Petro-dollars and other wealth make the region an important market for U.S. industry, especially the arms industry. Israel is important both for reasons of domestic politics and because it is a proxy for U.S. power in the region. By "hegemony," I mean the desire of Washington to dominate political and economic outcomes in the region and to forestall rivals such as China from making it their sphere of influence.

The Iranian government (in which Ahmadinejad has a weak role, analogous to that of U.S. vice presidents before Dick Cheney) poses a challenge to the U.S. program in the Middle East. Iran is, unlike most Middle Eastern countries, large. It is geographically four times the size of France, and it has a population of 70 million (more than France or the United Kingdom). As an oil state, it has done very well from the high petroleum prices of recent years. It has been negotiating long-term energy deals with China and India, much to the dismay of Washington. It provides financial support to the Palestinians and to the Lebanese Shiites who vote for the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon. By overthrowing the Afghanistan and Iraq governments and throwing both countries into chaos, the United States has inadvertently enabled Iran to emerge as a potential regional power, which could challenge Israel and Saudi Arabia and project both soft and hard power in the strategic Persian Gulf and the Levant.

And now the American war party, undeterred by the quagmire in Iraq, convinced that their model of New Empire is working, is eager to go on the offensive again. They may yet find a pretext to plunge the United States into another war. Ahmadinejad's visit to New York this year will not include his visit to Ground Zero, because that is hallowed ground for American patriotism and he is being depicted as not just a critic of the United States but as the leader of an enemy state. His visit may, however, be ground zero for the next big military struggle of the United States in the Middle East, one that really will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.


-- By Juan Cole
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: jbrid1138 on September 25, 2007, 08:03:04 am
And the heck of it is -- many don't even know where Iran is.  Sad but true.  But that doesn't stop them from the hate they feel for a people they know nothing about, other than what the psyops have told them. 

Just as it was (is) for Iraq.  And look what we've done to that country -- and continue to do.

Wake up people: Your sons, your daughters, your husbands, your wives (whoops, better make that singular before upsetting some of that same crowd I mentioned earlier), your aunts, your uncles, your nieces, your nephews, your friends, your neighbors -- YOU // will most certainly have to go fight in a war that only makes sense to the corrupt and greedy sending us there.  Wake up.  Pay attention.  Listen, think -- and help put and end to this madness. 
Title: President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Full Speech ***A MUST SEE***
Post by: jugger74 on September 25, 2007, 08:12:19 am
 This is the full speech including the disgusting comments from Lee Bollinger before the speech where he seems to infer that free speech is an inconvenience or technicality that he doesn't necessarily agree with which allows President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. You don't have to agree with anything he says but I feel many of his points are at the very least arguable. He raises many questions about Globalists and their role in the world and their attempts to change and control societies through science. He also outlines how America was involved in many of the wars and terrorist events that have happened in the middle east.

http://digg.com/videos/people/President_Ahmadinejad_at_Columbia_University
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: turkeybut on September 25, 2007, 06:31:51 pm
Why is it we don't see this on CNN:

Mystery surrounds deaths of Minot airmen
Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:10:30
 
 
Capt. John Frueh 
Six members of the US Air Force who were involved in the Minot AFB incident, have died mysteriously, an anti-Bush activist group says.

The incident happened when a B-52 bomber was "mistakenly" loaded with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander.

The plane was carrying Advanced Cruise Missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base on August 30.

The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on September 14 to review procedures, officials said.

The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand.

In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved in the incident, including ground crew workers had been temporarily decertified for handling munitions.

The activist group Citizens for Legitimate Government said the six members of the US Air Force who were directly involved as loaders or as pilots, were killed within 7 days in 'accidents'.

The victims include Airman First Class Todd Blue, 20, who died while on leave in Virginia. A statement by the military confirmed his death but did not say how he died.

In another accident, a married couple from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway. The two were riding a 2007 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, with the husband driving and the wife the passenger, police said.

"They were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport," the county sheriff said. "Jerry initiated a left turn into a business parking lot at the same time the man driving the motorcycle attempted to pass her van on the left in a no passing zone. They collided."

Adam Barrs, a 20-year-old airman from Minot Air Force Base was killed in a crash on the outskirts of the city.

First Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, a Minot Air Force Base bomber pilot, was killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee, the military officials say.

Police found the body of a missing Air Force captain John Frueh near Badger Peak in northeast Skamania County, Washington.

The Activist group says the mysterious deaths of the air force members could indicate to a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the Minot Air Base incident.
 
Title: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
Post by: RonPaulPwnz on September 25, 2007, 10:02:26 pm
Here is the story which I have dugg on Digg.  Please watch the video.  I thought it was very moving and so important at this critical time.  Please Digg it too.

http://digg.com/politics/Beautiful_and_Moving_Speech_by_President_Ahmadinejad_of_Iran_at_the_UN (http://digg.com/politics/Beautiful_and_Moving_Speech_by_President_Ahmadinejad_of_Iran_at_the_UN)
Title: Re: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
Post by: Matt Hatter on September 25, 2007, 10:21:14 pm
Wonderful yes! I believe more than ever that Iran does want peace.

I picked up the Canadian "National Post" today and I was outraged. On the front cover was the Iranian President(cannot spell his damn name) in regards to the Columbia University speech, and all the headlines stated were "Denies Holocaust" and "Claims there are NO GAYS". OK I admit the gay comment he mentioned was a little uncalled for, however did he EVER say he denied the Holocost? NO! He said it should be researched. And that we should always research our history. He also questions 9-11 and he Never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. The one-sided media is really starting to look like a bunch of fools!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 26, 2007, 01:53:45 am
Seems that the story is started from this website=

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24190&sectionid=3510203

A link at the the Citizens for Legitimate Government's website of this story points you back at presstv.ir.  Obviously this means that Presstv is a website hosted out of Iran.

However, I am going to look at the people listed and see if they are dead.  If so when they were reported missing or found dead.

I will let you know what I find.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 26, 2007, 02:16:54 am
www.ktbs.com/news/Married-couple-employed-by-Barksdale-killed-in-motorcycle-crash-5022/ - 57k

The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.

The following information is meant for the website developer for debugging purposes.
Error Occurred While Processing Request
Error Executing Database Query.
[Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]String or binary data would be truncated.
 
Resources:

    * Enable Robust Exception Information to provide greater detail about the source of errors. In the Administrator, click Debugging & Logging > Debugging Settings, and select the Robust Exception Information option.
    * Check the ColdFusion documentation to verify that you are using the correct syntax.
    * Search the Knowledge Base to find a solution to your problem.

Browser      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012
Remote Address      67.160.88.xxx
Referrer      http://www.google.com/search?as_q=married+couple+Barksdale&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=5100+block+of+Shreveport-Blanchard+Highway&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
Date/Time      26-Sep-07 01:56 AM

which you will notice has my IP address but that is a separate issue.


However, if you don't use the Google link and paste the properly formatted link into your browser you get this:

Married couple employed by Barksdale killed in motorcycle crash

Created: September 15, 2007 09:27 PM     Modified: September 15, 2007 11:22 PM

A double fatal wreck this weekend involving a husband and wife from Barksdale Air Force Base.

It happened at 11:30 a.m. Saturday in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway.

Caddo sheriff's deputies say the 29-year-old husband was driving a motorcycle with his wife as passenger. Deputies say he tried to pass in a no passing zone and collided with an SUV that was making a left turn.

His 32-year-old wife died at the scene. He later died at the hospital.

_______________________________________________

The link at: "www.ktbs.com/news/Married-couple-employed-by-Barksdale-killed-in-motorcycle-crash-5022/" also has a video clip of the actual on air report where it was reported that the couple were employees at Barksdale.  I take that too mean that they were not military but it doesn't really prove anything.

The second article I found gave me this result=

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012

Caddo deputies work double-fatality accident
September 15, 2007

Caddo Parish sheriff's deputies worked a wreck this morning in which two people from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed.

The accident, in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway at 11:30 a.m., claimed the lives of a married couple. Their names have not been released, but the man was 29 and the woman was 32, according to a release from Caddo Parish sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Chadwick.

The two were riding a 2007 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, with the husband driving and the wife the passenger, Chadwick said.

"They were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport," Chadwick's release said. "Jerry initiated a left turn into a business parking lot at the same time the man driving the motorcycle attempted to pass her van on the left in a no passing zone. They collided."

The woman passenger on the motorcycle died at the scene, while the husband was taken to LSU Hospital in Shreveport, where he died, the release said.

Further information on the victims is pending notification of their next-of-kin by Barksdale officials, the release said.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think it is interesting that the one MSM couldn't report the names but the other could.  This could be because of the time of reporting or it could have been at update at the one but not the other.  You would still think that the ktbs would have updated their article.  Further, neither mentions the driver of the pontiac and his/her disposition.

Will continue looking at the other incidents except the one in VA as everyone has already heard about that one and discussed it already.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 26, 2007, 02:20:29 am
The next one we already knew about and is a red herring as it happened before the nuke incident:

Authorities identify Minot airman killed in crash

Jul 5 2007 6:42AM
Associated Press
Minot, N.D. (AP) Authorities have identified a Minot Air Force Base man killed in a crash on the outskirts of Minot.

Base officials say 20-year-old Adam Barrs was a passenger in a vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday night.

Barrs was pronounced dead at the scene.

The driver is identified as 20-year-old Airman Stephen Garrett.

He was taken to Minot's Trinity Hospital in critical condition.

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=140988
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 26, 2007, 02:22:47 am
The next one is also before the Nuke incident:

Minot Airman dies in motorcycle accident
   
7/18/2007 - MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. -- A first lieutenant from Minot Air Force Base died in a motorcycle accident while on leave in Tennessee July 17.

First Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, was assigned to the 23rd Bomb Squadron as a B-52H Stratofortress pilot.

"Lt. Kissel was an outstanding officer and a superb B-52 pilot," said Lt. Col. Gerald Hounchell, 23rd BS commander. "Everyday he arrived at work with a 'can-do' attitude and a smile on his face. His leadership and friendship will be greatly missed by the 23rd Bomb Squadron Bomber Barons."

Lieutenant Kissel is a native of Tennessee. He graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2004 and arrived to Minot Air Force Base in July 2006.

The accident is under investigation.

http://www.minot.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123061162
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 26, 2007, 02:31:24 am
The next one I believe has no bearing with the nuke incident but I could be wrong.  Didn't the incident happen on the 30th of Aug?  If so it sounds like he was in WA or OR and not at either of the bases according to the article.  I am reading between the lines here, but I must admit that the lack of cause of death not being listed is troubling.  The article is below:

Body of missing Air Force captain found in Washington

Associated Press - September 9, 2007 11:15 PM ET

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - The body of a missing Air Force captain from Florida has been recovered in Skamania County, Washington.

Skamania County undersheriff Dave Cox says Captain John Frueh's rental car was found yesterday near Badger Peak and his body was discovered not far from the vehicle.

Cox says foul play is not suspected.

The 33-year-old captain arrived in Portland late last month to attend a friend's wedding. He last spoke with family on August 30th.


http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=7048007

This article says clearly that he was stationed in FL:

Body of missing Hurlburt Field Captain recovered
Wire and Staff Reports
Sunday September 9th, 2007

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP)

Undersheriff Dave Cox said Capt. John Frueh's rental car was found Saturday near Badger Peak and his body was discovered not far from the vehicle.

Cox said foul play is not suspected.

Frueh, 33, arrived in Portland late last month to attend a friend's wedding. He last spoke with family Aug. 30.

Frueh was assigned to "operations weather" for the Air Force Special Operations Command, according to AFSOC.
ラ The body of a missing Air Force captain from Hurlburt Field has been recovered in Skamania County, Wash., authorities said Sunday.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8908/
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: maddog3n on September 26, 2007, 02:43:41 am
So the only one that relates to the nuke incident is the couple at Barksdale so we have three people and not six. 

So I believe we are back to that this is a non-event as AJ has already pointed out.  Unless there is something else out there that we haven't heard about or there are connections that we cannot see.
Title: Re: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
Post by: RonPaulPwnz on September 26, 2007, 10:00:15 am
I seriously hope people wake up fast.  I am telling everyone I know or anyone I meet.
Title: Re: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
Post by: jbrid1138 on September 26, 2007, 10:15:35 am
I took your lead and (thanks to you) am providing a more direct link to the speech. 
http://www.calgary911truth.org/my_weblog/2007/09/beautiful-and-m.html

Near the beginning I heard him make comment regarding how nations can coexist with each other -- very well stated; reminded me of what it was GWB tried to say months ago about coexisting with fish (which makes absolutely no sense).  This man does.

--edited to add:
Noticed around 40 seconds remaining that the CNN scroll at the bottom of the screen was mentioning that Governor Schwarzenegger has made it a law that companies in the State of California that do business with Iran will no longer get funding from the State // something like that.  The man at the podium is talking about peace while the undertones around him are talking aggression.
Title: Re: President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Full Speech ***A MUST SEE***
Post by: galiana on September 26, 2007, 01:44:36 pm
It's well worth watching!

I hate to plug my own stuff, but:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bowen1.html

There's an article about the speech and the on-campus reaction.
Title: Bush and Congress ask Rothschild to print $190 Billion to start WWIII
Post by: Dig on September 26, 2007, 09:08:49 pm
Here it comes the absolute last piece for the WWIII puzzle:

    
Pentagon seeks 190 billion dollars for Iraq, Afghanistan
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/260907_b_dollars.htm
AFP-Wednesday, September 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, the largest war funding request ever in the six-year-old "war on terror," the Pentagon said Wednesday. Gates was scheduled to testify later before a Senate committee on the request, which was 42.3 billion dollars greater than the administration's estimate when it presented its 2008 budget request in February. "This additional 42.3 billion dollars puts us at just under 190 billion dollars for the global war on terror supplemental request for 2008 -- 189.3 billion dollars," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. More...
_______________________________

Less than $5 Billion will "support our troops."  The rest will be used for funding Al-Qaeda, funding more false flag terror campaigns at home/abroad, and pay for control over the media.

Rothschild/Rockefeller will print the money and we will be seen as the instigators in WWIII.

In addition, the dollar will be crushed and our country will be divide right down the middle, just like was done to the instigators of WWII.

All of the debates are staged and Clinton has already drummed up the Democrat support under the lie that it will help Democrats win in 2008.  Bush has drummed up Neo-Con support under the idea that an unprovoked attack on Iran will help the economy.

Get ready for selective service and full uncompromising fascism!

Bullshit on top of Bullshit.
Title: Re: Bush and Congress ask Rothschild to print $190 Billion to start WWIII
Post by: This American on September 26, 2007, 10:28:57 pm
It is intersting you mentioned about the country being divided right down the middle. I have often had the feeling that one of the purposes of the purported NAU highway (alleged) 3 footbal fields wide corridor is to act as a divider between the West America and the East America. One can imagine having to go through a checkpoint to go from east to west or vice-versa and easily inagine the reason for the huge Denver airport complex might be to be the new capital of the west. History replaying? Airport's artwork seems appropriate.

These globalists seem to have a past of first breaking down the current structure and then trying to rebuild it in their own grand design going from sovereign nations, into redrawn sections under their control. I wonder if many many years from now we will have some foreign leader standing on a podium somewhere telling our far far future decendents dictatorial leader-- after the fall-- "Sir..... Tear Down That Wall".
Title: Hannity And Fox News Lay Out Their War Plan For Attacking ‘Ticking Bomb’ Iran
Post by: Dig on September 26, 2007, 11:50:52 pm
Gen. Sean Hannity And Fox News Lay Out Their War Plan For Attacking ‘Ticking Bomb’ Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/fox-strike-ticking-iran/
The Fox News network is now in full drumbeat mode, trying to promote a war against Iran.


Last night, armchair General Sean Hannity did his part to beat the Iran war drums. On Hannity and Colmes, the bellicose host devoted half the show to previewing “what a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would look like (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/09/26/iran_nuke_strikes_are_out_regime_change_is_in_on_fox_news.php)“:

HANNITY: Mission: Iran Showdown. The objective: destroy and disable Iran’s top nuclear facilities, impact its ability to process and enrich uranium, delay its ability to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons, all while crippling the ruling regime.

The network also announced that this Saturday at 9 pm, it will air a “Fox News investigative piece” entitled Iran: Ticking Bomb. The show will be hosted by Dan Senor, the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Watch it:


Fox has also been parading one pro-Iran war voice after another.
(http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/09/FoxWarIran.320.240.jpg)
Earlier in the evening, Hannity hosted former UN ambassador John Bolton to discuss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations. Asked by Hannity “when will America and must America at some time respond militarily,” Bolton responded, “well, I think it’s entirely appropriate. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298138,00.html)”

Later in the evening, Hannnity brought AEI’s Michael Ledeen and Ret. Col. Chuck Nash (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/09/26/four_fox_news_military_analysts_principals_in_iran_regimechange_group.php) on the show to validate the need to bomb Iran. The two analysts are both hawks advocating “regime change” in Iran. Ledeen agreed with Hannity that America should attack “terrorist training camps” (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/09/26/iran_nuke_strikes_are_out_regime_change_is_in_on_fox_news.php) in Iran. Nash was open to the military option, but preferred other means.

On Monday, the network displayed a graphic that appears to sum up the fear-mongering feelings about Iran at Fox News: “Is war the only way to stop Mahmoud?” (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/fox-bangs-iran-war-drums/)

UPDATE: Last month, Brave New Films put together a video (http://foxattacks.com/iran) showing how Fox’s rhetoric towards Iran is eerily similar to it’s pre-war rhetoric on Iraq. Watch it HERE (http://foxattacks.com/iran).
Title: 'A Coup Has Occurred' by Daniel Ellsberg
Post by: bigron on September 27, 2007, 10:12:56 am
Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.

Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg's remarkable speech:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ellsberg.php?articleid=11674 (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ellsberg.php?articleid=11674)
Title: Re: President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Full Speech ***A MUST SEE***
Post by: jbrid1138 on September 27, 2007, 11:05:13 am
It's well worth watching!

I hate to plug my own stuff, but:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bowen1.html

There's an article about the speech and the on-campus reaction.
Plug on -- good article //

***extracted***
In the end, Ahmadinejad’s address at Columbia University devolved into the sorry spectacle of President Bollinger making an utter fool of himself and his university on national television. The Iranian president came out looking much better than the university president. But both of them (and we) would have been better off had they (and Geraldo) stayed at home.
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: Stan on September 27, 2007, 11:38:31 am
Columbia Won't Cancel Ahmadinejad Speech
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092100483.html
Sep 21, 8:16 AM (ET)
 
City Council speaker Christine Quinn called Thursday for the university to rescind the invitation, saying "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Quinn said Ahmadinejad was coming to the city "for one reason - to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."

His planned appearance at Columbia also was condemned by Jewish groups including the Jewish Defense Organization, which described Ahmadinejad as "the Hitler of Iran."
Eeeesh...

I'd like to know more about the Jewish residents of Iran beyond the fact that they have representation in Parliament. Do they live in camps or behind big concrete walls? Anything really.
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: Dig on September 27, 2007, 12:32:31 pm
Eeeesh...

I'd like to know more about the Jewish residents of Iran beyond the fact that they have representation in Parliament. Do they live in camps or behind big concrete walls? Anything really.


They will not have representation after we go in, believe that.

These groups trying to cause controversy are not jewish, christian, or muslim.  They are controlled by traitors of their religion, their country, their culture, their race (the human race):

Look at this influential local "Jewish" leader:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4988.msg20663#msg20663

AIPAC / JDL / Other jewish supremisist groups have nothing to do with jews and most likely are creating a huge amount of Blowback that will cause the greatest threat to Israel ever, 1,000x worse than any speech by Ahmadinejad.

These groups are a full part of the Military Industrial Complex including Carlyle (7% share owned by UAE), Halliburton (A United Arab Emirites Company), GE (British Royal Family)and all the Energy Companies (Queen Beatrice, Schultz, Buffett, Bush, Cheney, Rockefeller, Rothschild), and of course the most evil organization around...the Council on Foreign Affairs.

The Israeli bombing of a sovereign country in the area of 2 American Occupations is fricking insane, and if this keeps heating up, goodbye any remnants of liberty in this country.

Bush still refuses to answer any Israel questions and I find that more troubling than all of the NWO attempts to divert the issue to Ahmadinejad.

There is likely to be another 100 or so of these stories trying to connect Iran to 9/11, terrorism, anti-semitism.

THEY ARE ALL FALSE
Title: Abizaid Comes Out Against War With Iran!!
Post by: bigron on September 28, 2007, 08:34:05 am
Abizaid Comes Out Against War With Iran

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid-comes-o.html (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid-comes-o.html)

General John Abizaid, the longest serving CentCom commander in history, says we can live with a nuclear Iran. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear...Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." He continued: "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."

Abizaid's remarks are pretty clearly meant to blunt chatter coming out of the White House on the need for war with Iran. And they're important. One of the pernicious dynamics in the rhetoric around Iran is that the Bush administration's hawkishness has merged with the Democratic candidates' cowardice ("all options are on the table," when most mean "no, I won't bomb Iran, as I'm not an idiot") to create an impression, well-expressed by Ken Baer here, that no serious experts believe we should rule out war with Iran. As Abizaid, and many others, show, that's simply not true.

Visit site to read comments :

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid-comes-o.html (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid-comes-o.html)

Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 28, 2007, 08:51:14 am
Ahmadinejad steals the show in New York
 
27/09/2007 11:44:00 PM GMT
 
 "By courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den'... Ahmadinejad will become a hero in the Arab-Muslim street."

http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=40973 (http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=40973)


By Adam Robertson

Although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said nothing new at this year’s UN General Assembly, his speech dominated the opening of the meeting, and attracted worldwide attention.

On Tuesday, the Iranian president addressed the UN General Assembly, where he offered some thoughts about the world and his personal philosophy. (Click here to see Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN General Assembly)

According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad said that his speech was about "prospects for a brighter and more hopeful future, and about the appearance of the sublime and beauty, compassion and generosity, justice and blossoming of all the God-given human talents and the prominence of faith in God and realisation of the promise of God".

Of course, he talked about the Iranian nuclear case, saying that it was “closed” as a political issue and that the West’s military threats and sanctions had failed to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, which the West alleges is aimed at building atomic bombs despite Iran‘s insistence that it’s strictly peaceful.

The Iranian president also spoke of indigenous cultures being subjected to "broad and destructive aggressions" by the big powers who wanted to plunder peoples' wealth. He said it was time for these powers “to return from the path of arrogance and obedience to Satan to the path of faith in God".

Despite the fact that it wasn’t the kind of speech that a world leader would usually give, it seems that Ahmadinejad thinks that he is mobilising global opinion and striking a chord, according the BBC.

Moreover, from that ever-present twinkle in his eyes, he certainly seems to be enjoying the spotlight, even though his visit to New York sparked a storm which began with the refusal to let him visit Ground Zero.

However, it was the invitation to address students at Columbia University on Monday that triggered heated debate. Protestors outside the university compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler. There have also been dark mutterings of the university funding being cut off. (Click here to see Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Despite the criticism, many people wanted to listen to the Iranian leader. Tickets for the event were sold out within an hour of becoming available. Thousands of students also sat on the lawn outside to watch the address on a big screen.

There, Ahmadinejad talked about Islam, science, and the injustices in the Middle East. He also slammed the United States and Israel, and said that there are no homosexuals in Iran. 

However, Ahmadinejad’s speech had a lesser impact than that of the university president, Lee Bollinger, who introduced the Iranian leader as a dictator, and said that his Holocaust denials showed he was "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

In the U.S., many think that the Iranian president had been treated unfairly by the university that had invited him onto their grounds, while in Iran, politicians and the media -- even Ahmadinejad critics -- describe Bollinger's remarks as insulting.

Others described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York at a time of escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington over the Iranian nuclear program and the Iraq war as a triumph.

According to the Mehr News Agency, more than 200 Iranian lawmakers hailed Ahmadinejad's "historical and memorable" stay in New York, saying in a statement his "courageous" speech on Monday had made Muslims happy while angering Iran's enemies like Israel.

The head of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi- Shahroudi, who has in the past criticized Ahmadinejad, also said that the Iranian leader had defied hostile "plotters" to deliver his speech.

"By fearlessly and courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den' ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim street than before," the daily Iran News wrote.



 
Title: Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Post by: 12Cib on September 28, 2007, 12:45:32 pm

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370 (http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370)

 نسخه چاپي    ارسال به دوستان

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.

The following is the full text of the letter.

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

Title: Re: Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Post by: bigron on September 28, 2007, 01:05:22 pm
This is really notewothy..........

Wonder if this will ever be replied ......
Title: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
Post by: Dig on September 28, 2007, 04:04:19 pm
Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
by CreditBubble
Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 06:36:48 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/26/212150/758

Hillary voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment for war with Iran. I just saw her justify that vote during the debate. She used identical language to what she said when she was justifying her Iraq war vote on the floor of the senate, back in 2002. She talked about Iran supporting and supplying terrorism, threatening American interests, and being a grave threat. I mean, I am speechless. I have supported Hillary's campaign in the past, but I mean, I can't believe this. If she can't understand that war with Iran is unaccapetable, then what good is she? Even after all of the attacks against her because of her Iraq vote, she still doesn't understand. After all that has happened in Iraq, she still doesn't get it. If she isn't going to get it after all of this, then how can we trust her?
CreditBubble's diary :: ::

I used to think that Obama's criticism of Hillary over judgement was just a campaign talking point. I don't know anymore. I mean, she apparently doesn't understand that war with Iran is unacceptable. And then to use the same language she used in justifying her Iran vote, I mean, I am just speechless. Apparently after 4,000 dead soldiers, 30,000 injured soldiers, and 1 million dead Iraqis, she still doesn't get it.

How can I trust her to do the right thing? How can any of us trust her? I mean, it seems as though both she and holy joe are of the same mind over Iraq. So if she becomes president, does that mean another war??

How can we stop her, if she is in fact as dangerous as her comment and vote would have you believe? She is ahead in all of the polls. She doesn't have the money (Obama has that). She doesn't have the passion (Edwards has that). But she has all of the momentum. I mean, war with Iran? I just am speechless.

Hillary's vote on the Lieberman admendment was unacceptable   

Agree
90%   80 votes

Disagree
10%   9 votes


89 votes
Title: Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
Post by: Dig on September 28, 2007, 04:05:29 pm
Hillary Clinton’s Iran Vote
By: Scarecrow
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/28/hillary-clintons-iran-vote/
If the American people have a major reservation about the possibility of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, I suspect it is none of the usual reasons given about what the Republicans might have on “the Clintons” or our readiness to have a woman as President.

Unlike the Republicans, the American people like Bill Clinton; and they can tell Hillary is smart, articulate and capable. That’s partly why she’s the front runner.

And they’ve no doubt observed that countries all over the world have women presidents and prime ministers, and every one of them is obviously smarter and wiser than George Bush and less reckless and duplicitous than Dick Cheney.

No, it seems more likely the reservation is about what she learned from her vote to authorize Bush and Cheney to start a war. That question was front and center in Wednesday night’s Democratic candidates’ debate. And her answer was chilling, because it confirmed everyone’s worst fears about her basic judgment.

When challenged about her Iraq authorization vote, Senator Clinton has repeatedly tried to pin the blame on George Bush — that she had a right to expect him to be honest, to use good judgment, and to exercise good faith in completing the WMD inspections and acting on the facts. In short, Hillary’s defense has been “I trusted Bush to make the right decision, but against my advice, and to my surprise, he deceived all of us and made the wrong decision.” And she has added, “if I had known then . . .” and (paraphrasing) “I would not have made the same judgment as Bush.” Not very satisfying, but she’s stuck to it.

But what about the next war? Senator Edwards framed the most obvious question: Now that we know Bush and Cheney cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or to give peaceful alternatives a chance, or to act with wisdom and due regard for consequences, why would anyone in their right minds approve a resolution that would give Bush and Cheney the idea Congress had enabled them to make any decision regarding possible war with Iran?

Wednesday’s vote on the Lieberman - Kyl resolution, condemning Iran and allowing the designation of its Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist” entity, was a litmus test for candidates seeking the Presidency. The vote separated the wise from the foolish, and Senator Clinton voted — again — for foolish.

The post debate media spinners gave us the conventional wisdom that candidate X was positioning himself for the primary, while candidate Y was positioning herself for the general election. But the vote on the Iran resolution was not about positioning for the general election, because it was not about what a President Clinton would do, but about what Bush/Cheney might do.

Hillary Clinton expressed the Bush framing about the terrorist nature of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, but her statements were not relevant to whether it was wise or foolish to vote for the Lieberman - Kyl resolution. That resolution’s relevance is not about what Hillary Clinton would do as President, but about what it enables Bush and Cheney to do without Congressional opposition during their term, not hers.

There is no way to spin Clinton’s vote to blunt what it tells us. Her vote in favor of the resolution was reckless and foolish and exhibited exactly the same flawed judgment — if not opportunism — as her original Iraq authorization vote. Only this time, she has no excuse of claiming she didn’t know Bush’s character.

If this were a Republican candidate, I would see it as a disqualifying event. Why shouldn’t the same apply here, especially when two other Democratic candidates facing similar political pressures — Dodd and Biden — voted for “wise”?
Title: Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
Post by: Dig on September 28, 2007, 04:06:27 pm
Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html
Posted September 27, 2007 | 02:54 PM (EST)


Yesterday, by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to "confront Iran" passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.

The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words "roll back" were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

The inclusion of Hezbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an "amalgam" of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.

More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a "foreign terrorist organization." Now, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney's wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.

It was said during the Vietnam War that "a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong." It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.

Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman:

Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote.

It is a remarkable fact that the war meditated against Iran, like the war on Iraq, is sought most keenly by a vice president and president who went further than most of their generation to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. The fact becomes the more remarkable in view of the contempt shown by both men for those who did not cheer and avoid, but opposed the Vietnam war by conscientious dissent. The same is true across the range of non-combatant neoconservative war architects and propagandists. Psychological compensation of an astonishing kind (to say no more) is at work in this display of rashness disguised as courage in the later careers of our war leaders behind the lines. For several years now, the mainstream press and media have said as little as possible about it.

Two votes against Kyl-Lieberman were issued from veterans with considerable experience and firsthand knowledge of war, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb. If these two men were now to sharpen their dissidence, if they could make their reasons articulate and see the present as a time that calls them to the sustained work of opposition-- we might have the beginnings of a potent resistance which will never come from Harry Reid.

What of the absence of Barack Obama? In a speech in Iowa on September 12, he addressed by anticipation the matter before the Senate in Kyl-Lieberman: "We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear--loud and clear--from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."

It is baffling that a man who spoke those words two weeks ago could not find the time or the resolve to cast his vote in a conspicuous test for authorizing war on Iran. This seems to be one more demonstration of Obama's tendency never to take a step forward without a step to the side. As for his own message about Iran, it has not been "loud and clear," but muffled, wavering, experimental.

With Hillary Clinton, we know where we stand. Yesterday she voted to bring the country a serious step closer to war against Iran. And she did so for the same reason that she voted to authorize the war on Iraq. She thinks the next war is going to happen. She hopes the worst of its short-term effects on America will have died down before the election. She suspects the media and voters will show more trust for a candidate who supported than for one who opposed the war. She wants a ponderous establishment of American troops and super-bases to remain in the Middle East for years to come. If she wins the presidency, she will inherit the command of that army and those bases, and she believes she can manage their affairs more prudently than George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton is consistent. Every move is calculated, her actual intentions are masked, but the total drift is easy to comprehend. It is not so with Obama. How can he expect anyone to back a man who will not back himself?
Title: Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
Post by: Dig on September 28, 2007, 04:06:57 pm
Hillary Votes Yes On Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment
By Greg Sargent - September 26, 2007, 12:59PM
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/hillary_votes_yes_on_kyllieberman_iran_amendment.php
Voting's underway on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- and Hillary just voted Aye.

Apparently the bill's backers sought to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

Webb, however, still opposes the bill because it designates the Iran guard a terrorist organization.
Title: Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
Post by: xvyxx on September 28, 2007, 04:26:48 pm
Only difference between Hillary and Bush is that you won't have to pay for the doctors to sterilize you in the FEMA camp when she is president.
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: 12Cib on September 28, 2007, 09:17:34 pm
I doubt Bollinger will have the courage to reply, as evidenced by his behavior at Columbia.  I'm interested in seeing how Columbia students receive this invitation. Will they actually step outside of their bubble and go to Iran to see the world for themselves? Or will they continue to leave their blinders on and believe in the ridiculous propaganda served up to them daily, by their so called educators? I think I will try to follow through and contact some of them to see where they really stand.

The article below shows that the compartmentalized/blackmailed U.S. establishment really has no idea what they are doing. To even think about attacking Iran, is lunacy. The repercussions are hard to imagine. But when Turkey and Pakistan are on such friendly terms with Iran, doing so would definitely escalate into a regional/global conflict very quickly. The NWO globalists are truly going for broke as they are getting walloped in the infowar. Only fear is on their side now. Like Alex has stated repeatedly, it's time to redouble our efforts at exposing their countless crimes.

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8607060345 (http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8607060345)

  Turkey Praises Ahmadinejad's Address at US Columbia University

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks at the US Columbia University underlined the righteousness and truthfulness of the Islamic Republic's stances.

Erdogan made the remarks in a meeting with Iranian president on Wednesday on the sidelines of the 62nd annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, a statement released by the Presidential Press Office said.

During the meeting, Erdogan stressed his pleasure in Tehran-Ankara developing relations, and further reiterated the need for the two countries to implement previous agreements and deepen the existing relations.

"The high economic potentials of Iran and Turkey must be utilized in a desirable manner, " the Turkish premier pointed out.

For his part, the Iranian president said that his presence at the different think-thanks and scientific bodies and circles during his visit to the US proved the righteous stances and the truthful words of the Iranian nation.

He said addressees always have an ear for the right words due to their pure and clean nature, no matter where they are and where they live.



Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: galiana on September 28, 2007, 09:48:33 pm
I'd love to go to Iran. It's very expensive, though, and highly impractical. You have to apply for a visa through Switzerland and go with a government approved tour, or not at all. Maybe next year, assuming we don't bomb them.
Title: Questions about Iranian Weapons in Iraq
Post by: 12Cib on September 28, 2007, 10:26:02 pm

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/02/questions_about_iranian_weapon.php#more (http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/02/questions_about_iranian_weapon.php#more)

Excerpt from Article:

..Defense Department officials reportedly provided little proof for their claims of high-level involvement by the Iranian government, and the next day General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chief of staff, appeared to contradict them. Commenting on the captured weaponry, Pace conceded that the weapons “[do] not translate to that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.” Yesterday President Bush sided with General Pace, confirming that “we don’t…know whether the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.”
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 29, 2007, 01:06:17 am
Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/280907_b_attack.htm
BENNY AVNI New York Sun Friday, September 28, 2007


UNITED 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!" The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, also expressed concerns to reporters in New York that an attack on Iran might be imminent. 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. However, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who recently spoke of preparing for war with Iran, berated reporters yesterday, telling them that he had said war is the "worst option." Instead, he is now calling for "diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy." As foreign ministers representing the five permanent members of the Security Council — China, Russia, France, Britain, and America — and Germany plan to sit down Friday for a long-planned meeting to discuss ideas for addressing Iran's refusal to end uranium enrichment, Mr. Kouchner told reporters that China and Russia are likely to delay any significant decision until at least December.

"It would be very difficult to convince the Russians and the Chinese before" December, he said. A Russian diplomat told The New York Sun on Monday that Moscow would call on the council to await the conclusion of a new round of diplomacy conducted by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. At a breakfast with reporters yesterday, Mr. Kouchner said he had "spent hours" with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, trying to convince him to approve council sanctions against Iran. Russia, Mr. Kouchner said, is attempting to regain its top world status, while "we treat them, they told me, like little adolescents." Meanwhile, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, indicated yesterday that President Sarkozy of France may be a more reliable ally on Iran than Prime Minister Brown of Britain. "It's not at all clear where Brown is at," Mr. Bolton told the Sun. "The question is, ‘Will Britain follow in the footsteps of France?'" Either way, Mr. Bolton said he did not invest too much hope in Security Council diplomacy. Some American diplomats are saying the next phase of diplomacy with Iran may involve a separate track of sanctions that would be imposed without Security Council approval. Mr. Kouchner said yesterday that the French government is trying to lean on companies like the oil giant Total to end ties with Iran. Between 2005 and 2006, he said, French commerce with Iran was cut in half.

But an unnamed German government official told Reuters yesterday, "Unlike the United States and the French, the German government is not ready to go outside the U.N. for sanctions." The official expressed doubts that Europe could reach a consensus on such sanctions. German companies such as Siemens, BASF, Mercedes, and Volkswagen maintain strong business ties with Iran. In 2006, such companies reportedly exported goods worth $5.7 billion to Iran, up from $5 billion in 2004. In Vienna, Mr. ElBaradei is preparing a report that is not expected to be ready before December. In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week, President Ahmadinejad of Iran said the "nuclear issue of Iran is now closed," and he said Tehran would stop dealing with the Security Council and would negotiate only with the IAEA. Mr. ElBaradei recently reached an agreement with Iran that allows it to report on outstanding nuclear issues over a long period of time. The Iranians, nonetheless, are "very, very, very firm that they don't want to stop enrichment," Mr. Kouchner said yesterday. Mr. ElBaradei, who is charged with reporting on technical nuclear issues, was berated by Secretary of State Rice, who said the Tehran accords amounted to conducting private diplomacy. Before he became U.N. ambassador, Mr. Bolton sought to mount a campaign to unseat Mr. ElBaradei. A former secretary of state, Colin Powell, "was never enthusiastic about it," Mr. Bolton said yesterday. "When Rice became secretary of state, the winds came out of the sails" of the campaign to unseat the IAEA director. "Stopping him would have required a lot of effort," Mr. Bolton said, but he added that Mr. ElBaradei's current behavior on Iran "proves that it was worthwhile."
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 29, 2007, 05:50:08 am
Countdown: Jim Webb on Lieberman/Kyl, Rush Limbaugh and the Spanish Downing Street Revelations
By: Nicole Belle @ 7:08 PM - PDT   
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/28/countdown-jim-webb-on-liebermankyl-rush-limbaugh-and-the-spanish-downing-street-revelations/


(http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/ko-sen-webb-02.thumbnail.jpg) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/21881/1/KO-Sen-Webb.wmv)


It’s dizzying to try to keep up with all the plates that the Right Wing are spinning. On Thursday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann and Sen. Jim Webb try to put it all in perspective.

(On the Spanish “Downing Street” memos)  There’s no real surprise there. If you look back at where the situation was in ‘02, I and General Tony Zinni and other people were saying that Iraq probably would have been sixth highest in terms of the threats to the United States. In fact, I wrote a piece in the Washington Post five years ago this month, basically saying “Do you really want to be in Iraq for the next 30 years?” and that these people have no exit strategy because they don’t intend to leave.
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 08:37:38 am
The Man Behind the Iran Curtain
 
by Khody Akhavi
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11688 (http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11688)

He called for more "research" into the unequivocal facts of the Holocaust, said Iranian women were among the freest in the world, and declared that homosexuality did not exist in his country.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad courts controversy wherever he goes, and his visit to New York this week was no exception. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Iran's president said he considered the dispute over his country's nuclear program"closed." Even before his arrival, he had asked – and was denied – permission to lay a wreath at the site of the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks in New York.

But it was Ahmadinejad's appearance Monday at Columbia University that generated the most press buzz and protests. In a chiding introduction that has since generated sharply divided reactions, university President Lee Bollinger described the Iranian leader as "exhibiting all the signs of a cruel and petty dictator" and condemned his denial of the Holocaust as "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

Ahmadinejad came out swinging, calling Bollinger's words "insults" and proceeded to deliver a speech to the university's faculty and students that meandered between a religious sermon and a treatise on science. He repeated provocative statements that at times bordered on the absurd. He remained evasive on questions that ranged from human rights abuses in Iran to his call for Israel to be "wiped from the pages of history", often responding to them with opaque rhetorical questions.

When asked for a one-word answer – "yes or no" – as to whether his government desired the "destruction of Israel as a Jewish state", Ahmadinejad responded: "And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information... I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no." His answer received laughter and applause.

Ahmadinejad's visit comes at a time of heightened tensions between the US and Iran, with the George W. Bush administration pushing the U.N. Security Council for a third round of economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic for its refusal to shut down its nuclear program Analysts suggest that the Iranian leader's meandering monologues and fiery rebuttals are all part of a contest of rhetorical muscle, a classic game of political theater.

"It's a last bid to divide the West," said Michael Hirsch, a senior editor at Newsweek magazine, during a forum Monday at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

He added: "I think it's generally a good idea when you're inviting people to your university not to tell them upon arrival that they're not welcome, because then you look crazier than Ahmadinejad."

Ahmadinejad has used the Khomeinist inspired rhetoric of the Islamic Revolution to his advantage, playing a widely despised villain in the Western media while pandering to his domestic base and projecting an air of defiance towards US power.

But experts say that the Iranian leader has also drawn heavy domestic criticism for his mismanagement of the Iranian economy, as well as his brash remarks about the Holocaust, comments which, in the long term, threaten to derail any possible improvement in US-Iranian relations.

"I was astonished when I was [in Iran]. I actually had more on-the-record conversations criticizing Ahmadinejad with Iranian politicians and businessmen than I have here in Washington criticizing Bush," said Hirsch.

In one interview with an Iranian newspaper editor, Hirsch said that the editor remarked, "You know, one of the things we say around here is that Bush is your Ahmadinejad."

"They're similar personalities, both sort of pandering to their conservative religious political base, crudely spoken, not especially masters of their native languages," said Hirsch.

The rhetoric portends an ominous future for the tense standoff between Israel and Iran, which analysts believe is a geo-strategic conflict that is largely being couched in ideological terms.

While it appears the Iranian government has made an explicit effort to bring Israel into the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad's comments about the Holocaust have angered many inside Iranian elite foreign policy circles because they distract from the more pressing issues of the country's security.

"[Ahmadinejad] actually crossed an invisible red line that exists inside Iran's own internal politics," said Trita Parsi, an Iran specialist and head of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council.

"Criticizing Israel was never something the Iranians were sensitive about – they're quite thick-skinned about to be frank – but talking about the Holocaust was no longer about Israel, and this was something about the entire Jewish experience," he said. "[Ahmadinejad] caused a tremendous amount of anger."

It appears that Israeli politicians are also using the rhetoric to their advantage.

"Netanyahu, he has a metaphor. It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, and he goes on to imply that Ahmadinejad is Hitler," said Parsi, referring to the former Israeli prime minister and head of the right-wing Likud bloc in Israel's Knesset.

"If Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is Hitler, who in his or her right mind wants to play the part of Neville Chamberlain?"

It remains to be seen what impact Ahmadinejad's visit will have on the more crucial issues at hand. So far, Iran's attempts to foment division among the key members of the UN Security Council appear to be working.

Six nations – Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the United States – agreed Friday to delay until November a new resolution that would toughen sanctions against Iran, waiting to see if Tehran cooperates with UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei and answers outstanding questions about its disputed nuclear program

To more discerning critics, Ahmadinejad's US visit only adds more smoke and mirrors to an already tangled political situation in the Middle East, one which the US cannot afford to exacerbate further by militarily confronting Iran.

"The overwhelming tide of opinion that Bush is hearing from the Pentagon is that this would be foolhardy and extreme, and result in many repercussions in Iraq," said Hirsch. "Bush knows that Iraq is his legacy, and that has sucked all the oxygen out of the room."

(Inter Press Service)
 
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 08:53:02 am
US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands
 
by Charley Reese
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11686 (http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11686)

Ernest Hemingway explained the problem many years ago. The first thing politicians do to hide their mismanagement, he said, is inflate the currency; the second thing they do is go to war.

Our currency has been inflated and we are at war. The demonization of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which you saw take place in New York City and on American television, is just the first step in preparing the country for a third war.

The president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, disgraced himself. Instead of introducing his invited guest speaker, he launched a tirade of abuse and insults. Obviously, he was in hot water with some of Columbia's big donors for inviting Ahmadinejad and chose that petty, shabby way of trying to ingratiate himself to the school's angry sugar daddies. All Bollinger succeeded in doing was making Ahmadinejad look good in comparison with him.

Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend soccer games, the clerics overruled him.

The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is something American politicians do every time they find a country whose policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put people in prison who question details of the official version, which is what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to pay for it? Both are good questions.

How American politicians can call Iran a dangerous country and claim that it poses a threat to the U.S. is a mystery. On second thought, it is not a mystery. It just tells you that the politicians think you and I are so stupid that we will fall for the exact same parade of lies and exaggerations that was used to justify the war against Iraq.

Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200 nuclear weapons and a superb air force.

Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear weapon; that he had enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The only thing he really had was oil. That's why we went to war, and that's why the administration wants to go to war with Iran.

I've heard some politicians say that Ahmadinejad has "blood on his hands." Well, our $40 billion worth of intelligence cannot even determine if he was involved in the taking of the American embassy back in 1979. As for blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.

We truly have a corrupt and incompetent government in Washington.

 
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 08:56:41 am
From the Los Angeles Times
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesC18.html (http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesC18.html)

The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad farce!

If the Columbia University president were to introduce Bush the way he did the Iranian president, that would be an act of free-speech bravery.
Rosa Brooks

September 28, 2007

Imagine the scene: As angry protesters march outside, a nation's unpopular president prepares to address students and faculty at a prestigious university. Introducing the president, the head of the university is bluntly critical of his guest speaker: "You, quite simply, [are] ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. . . . I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer [our] questions . . . I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind-set that characterizes so much of what you say and do. . . . Your preposterous and belligerent statements . . . led to your party's defeat in the [last] elections."

Unfazed, the president rises to begin his speech. His sometimes bizarre remarks generate hoots of derision. But he plows on civilly, though he ducks and weaves when faced with critical questions from the audience.

When the clock runs out, many are dissatisfied with his answers. But everyone applauds the courageous head of the university, who wasn't afraid to speak truth to power, and everyone praises the student protesters, who exemplified the democratic values of dissent and free expression.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if something like that could happen in our country?

No, no, I mean really happen in our country. Tuesday's farce in New York at Columbia University, starring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Unpopular Presidential Guest and Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger as The Man Who Spoke Truth to Power, doesn't count because it was just that: a farce.

Ahmadinejad was playing to global public opinion, and though he lost some PR points for incoherence and general bizarreness of message ("In Iran, we don't have homosexuals"), he gained some for coming off as a bit more mature than his prissy, infantile host. ("In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them," Ahmadinejad observed dryly.)

Bollinger, meanwhile, was playing to a different audience. After taking a beating for giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he was eager to show the media, alumni, concerned Jewish organizations and a raft of bellicose neoconservative pundits that he was no terrorist-loving appeaser of Holocaust deniers.

In a narrow sense, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger achieved their goals. Ahmadinejad showed that he could be dignified in the face of crass American bullies, which will play well abroad -- and may even buttress his dwindling prestige in Iran. And Bollinger showed that he can be a crass American bully, which, in our current political climate, is what passes for "courage."

Bollinger's tactics went down well with the New York media, anyway: The New York Sun rhapsodized about a "Teaching Moment," while the New York Times expressed the pious hope that "what Americans and Iranians will remember is that image of professors and students, in a true democratic forum." And Bollinger seemed quite pleased with his own performance. The Bollinger-Ahmadinejad Show was "free speech at its best," Bollinger modestly explained to reporters.

Sorry, no. "Free speech at its best" is when someone really does speak truth to power, and power stops blathering long enough to engage with inconvenient ideas. If an Iranian professor, inside Iran, had said what Bollinger said to Ahmadinejad, that would have been brave.

Or -- stay with me here -- if Bollinger had invited President Bush to Columbia and made those same unvarnished remarks to him, and Bush had toughed it out and struggled to answer half a dozen unfiltered, critical questions from an audience not made up of his handpicked supporters . . . . Well, that too would have been free speech at its best.

Unfortunately, that's not the kind of thing you're likely to see in America.

It's odd, because Bush -- like Ahmadinejad -- makes plenty of statements that, to paraphrase the eloquent Mr. Bollinger, could be characterized as ridiculous, provocative, uneducated and fanatical. (Take Bush's repeated suggestion of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, for instance.) And as in the case of Ahmadinejad, some of Bush's preposterous and belligerent statements contributed to the GOP's defeat in the last elections.

But so what? Here in the land of free speech, elites -- including those at universities -- too often collude to keep our own president in his safe little bubble. (Those who forget to pretend that the emperor is fully dressed, such as Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents Assn. dinner or Jimmy Carter at Coretta Scott King's funeral, are instantly chastised for being "inappropriate.")

This week, a global audience saw Iran's "petty and cruel dictator," as Bollinger called him, courteously parrying questions from hostile students -- something viewers won't see our democratically elected president doing.

So fine, let's congratulate ourselves for showing Iran just how many freedoms we have in America. But when we get done congratulating ourselves on our fancy freedoms, let's figure out why we can't be bothered to put them to use.



Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 12:24:02 pm
Lost In Translation: Ahmadinejad And The Media

By Ali Quli Qarai
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm)

09/28/07 "ICH" -- - First I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: “We do not have homosexuals in Iran of the kind you have in your country.” The American media conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as something redundant.

Obviously he was not saying, We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.

What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.” This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.

Homosexuality in the US is a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor, in the last two presidential elections which paved Bush’s way to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.

By contrast, homosexuality is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible. (It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during the last two decades)

By contrast adultery and homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.

There was also a subtle hint in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that “You can rest assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect.”

Iranians, being linguistically a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and often as primitive.

(In general the Persians, like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)

Mr Bollinger’s hostility towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations and interpretations of his earlier—also world-famous—remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked, the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News.

· Unfortunately for more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his critics to demonize him and attack Iran’s foreign policies. Although he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly meant.

It is a basic linguistic principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable and upright interpretation for someone’s remark, it should not be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says, it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people who hold different opinions. This is particular necessary when such statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.

When Ahmadinejad repeated Ayatullah Khomeini’s words that “Israel baayad az bayn beravad,” (which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand these words of their president. I don’t think any mature Iranian with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating some kind of military objectives against Israel. By citing the example of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad, too, has clarified what he meant by ‘Israel ceasing to exist.’ By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker’s clarification concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements. In this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.

As for his statement that the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word “myth” has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is “A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have—what he considers to be legitimate—doubts about its exact extent, doubts which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions different from main-current historiography. What he basically appears to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives—something which most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine. Why should the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.

The savants of the media are free to interpret Ahmadinejad’s statement with the purpose of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations, and to an objective like this should institutions like universities, including Columbia, contribute.

I hope that Mr Bollinger will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people, like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.

Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar. He has published several books, including a translation of the Quran. He can be reached at altwhid@gmail.com

Title: Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 12:34:03 pm
Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18474.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18474.htm)

By Mike Gravel

09/28/07 "ICH" -- - -Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terroristsť before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organizationť is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.ť

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actorsť who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.

Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 12:57:49 pm
Six key nations agree to delay talks on Iran sanctions until November 
 
By Reuters 
[url][http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907981.html/url]
 
Six key nations agreed Friday to delay until November a new United Nations resolution that would toughen sanctions against Iran in efforts to prevent the Islamic republic from enriching uranium.

A joint statement from the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany said they would finalize the new resolution and bring it to a vote unless reports in November from the chief UN nuclear official and the European Union's foreign policy chief show a positive outcome of their efforts.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters after foreign ministers of the six countries met Friday morning that "we have to wait to take into account the two reports."

 

 
Before the meeting Friday morning, Russia's foreign minister made clear that Moscow demands to see a report from the UN nuclear agency on Tehran's past suspicious nuclear work before considering new sanctions.

Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice exchanged sharp words at a luncheon Wednesday when Rice pushed for tough new sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, and Lavrov said Moscow wanted to give nuclear inspectors time to do their job, according to the Russian minister and U.S. and European officials present.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Thursday that Russia and China refuse to discuss possible new sanctions against Iran until the UN nuclear agency reports on Tehran's disclosure of its past activities at the end of the year.

He said he did not think the council would be able to take up a new sanctions resolution until after December when the International Atomic Energy Agency's report is due.

"I think that it would be very difficult to convince the Russians and the Chinese before," Kouchner told international reporters at a breakfast meeting.

"We'll do our best to convince them, but honestly, the position was difficult to tackle."

Lavrov refused to comment on Kouchner's assessment but told reporters Thursday night that the IAEA's progress with Iran is obvious, and Moscow wants to see the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program.

"Any Security Council measures must be proportionate and commensurate with what Iran is actually doing - and as long as Iran is doing something which satisfies part of the demands of the Security Council, I believe we have to caliber our action in the Security Council and elsewhere," he said.

Lavrov's comments to ITAR-TASS and RIA-Novosti earlier Thursday were stronger.

"Interference by means of any sanctions would undermine the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts," Lavrov was quoted as saying. The UN Security Council measures on Iran should be balanced and respond to the steps taken by Tehran itself that obliged to answer all questions.

While Rice and her top aides want to capitalize on international frustration with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for declaring on Tuesday that the nuclear issue is closed and vowing to defy any Security Council move for more sanctions, Lavrov was adamant in his support for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

We want to get this information, professional assessment by the inspectors, Lavrov told reporters Thursday night.

Lavrov told The Associated Press that he had strong words with Rice about whether the time was right for new sanctions when the IAEA has struck an agreement with Iran about its past activities.

Lavrov said the United States wanted to ignore the IAEA - as it has in the past - but we want to rely on IAEA expertise.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and Iranian officials agreed in July that Tehran would answer questions from agency experts by December on more than two decades of nuclear activity - most of it secret until revealed more than four years ago.

IAEA technical officials returned to Tehran this week to start probing outstanding questions, some with possible weapons applications.

Earlier this month, ElBaradei urged nations critical of the pact to hold their horses until the end of the year - when the deadline for Iran to provide answers runs out.

Two U.N. resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have failed to persuade the country to suspend uranium enrichment. Tehran insists the program is aimed at producing energy for civilian use, but the U.S., its European allies and many others fear the program's real aim is to produce nuclear weapons.

Kouchner said sanctions are not working and tougher measures are needed to pressure Iran to suspend its enrichment program, amid growing international concerns that Tehran was working to produce a nuclear bomb.

The French minister said that when he used the word war recently, it was to prevent not to impose war over Iran's nuclear program.

This is life and death, Kouchner said, explaining that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be the start of proliferation in the region, and that is absolutely dangerous, more than dangerous.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, on Thursday used similar language, telling reporters that the agreement with the IAEA cannot be used as a shield to protect Iran from its violation, lack of cooperation, lack of implementation of the demands of the Security Council on the nuclear issue.

Khalilzad said that Iran's ability to enrich uranium to a level usable for weapons is a threat to international security and stability. It is one of the most important, perhaps one of the defining issues of our time.

A united diplomatic front, he said, increases the chances that diplomacy will succeed. Those who will not cooperate on the diplomacy of this, with regard to pressure on Iran, sanctions on Iran, bear some responsibility should diplomacy, God forbid, fail. 
 
 
 
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 01:01:27 pm
Security Council to Wait Two Months on Iran Sanctions (Update4)

By Bill Varner
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anrF2HyZyXPo&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anrF2HyZyXPo&refer=worldwide)

 Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and its allies will delay their push for another round of sanctions against Iran for two months while waiting for reports on the status of the Iranian nuclear program, according to an agreement reached today among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

As part of the understanding with Russia and China, the U.S. dropped its opposition to an accord between UN nuclear inspectors and the Iranian government that is intended to give more time to assess the scope of Iran's atomic program. U.S. officials had said the IAEA deal with Iran was at odds with the sanctions diplomacy at the Security Council.

The parties to today's agreement, which included Security Council members France and Britain, along with Germany and the European Union, said in a statement they ``welcome'' the IAEA accord.

``We call upon Iran, however, to produce tangible results rapidly and effectively by clarifying all outstanding issues and concerns on Iran's nuclear program,'' including any military aspects, and to provide access required by inspectors, according to the statement released by the State Department.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, speaking to reporters today after the meeting in New York on Iran, which included U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, highlighted the importance of reaching an agreement with China and Russia on the timing.

``The meeting was a success because we are still together, on two tracks -- negotiations and sanctions,'' he said. ``There is a good compromise.''

Russia had wanted to wait until the end of the year for further Security Council action, while the U.S. was pressing for movement in October.

`Arrogant Powers'

Their compromise came three days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the authority of the Security Council to make demands on his government, in a speech to the UN General Assembly. Ahmadinejad said the UN's highest body had become the tool of ``arrogant powers.''

The permanent council members will defer the consideration of more sanctions until EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei report to them on Iran's nuclear efforts. Their reports should come by Nov. 30, Kouchner said.

The U.S., China, France, Britain, Russia, Germany and the EU expressed ``full support'' for the IAEA in the Iran matter, the statement from the governments says.

Rice had criticized the IAEA for overstepping its bounds in making the deal with Iran. ``The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy,'' Rice said earlier this month, according to a transcript of remarks she made on a flight to Jerusalem. ``The IAEA is a technical agency that has a board of governors, of which the United States is a member.''

Solana's Talks

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the support given to the efforts of Solana and ElBaradei and said it was ``good that eventually those who have had doubts about continuing Solana's talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani changed their mind.'' Lavrov didn't specify who he meant by that.

ElBaradei has spoken out publicly about his concerns that the tensions with Iran might lead to a military attack. That scenario gained credence when Kouchner told the French news channel LCI on Sept. 16 that the world should ``prepare for the worst'' and that the ``worst is war.''

While U.S. officials have refused to rule out a military option, they have consistently promoted diplomatic efforts to pressure Iran. Nicholas Burns, the State Department official who leads the Iran nuclear discussions for the U.S., said he would work with his counterparts in other governments next month to draft a new round of sanctions.

Stronger Resolution

A third Security Council resolution would be ``incrementally and proportionally stronger'' than the existing two measures, Burns told reporters at a Manhattan hotel where the governments met today. Iran's banks would be one target of expanded sanctions, Kouchner said in Washington last week.

The council, in its two resolutions, has banned Iran's acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb and frozen the assets of individuals and groups involved in its nuclear program, including commanders of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. UN member nations have been asked to ``exercise vigilance and restraint'' in selling arms to the government.

Kouchner told reporters later the ministers discussed a set of 14 possible sanctions measures, including a broader arms embargo, restrictions on investments in Iran and penalties against more Revolutionary Guard officials than were named in previous resolutions.

Russia rejected some and China others, Kouchner said, adding that he concluded that Russia was ``less rigid'' than China in the talks on specific measures under consideration.

Burns said today's agreement shows that Ahmadinejad was ``badly mistaken'' in telling the UN General Assembly this week that he considered the nuclear matter ``closed'' and not subject to Security Council involvement.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bill Varner in New York at wvarner@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 28, 2007 17:49 EDT
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 01:08:52 pm
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908012.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908012.html)
 
Last update - 18:26 28/09/2007

Ahmadinejad invites Bush to speak at university in Iran

By The Associated Press

TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has extended an invitation to U.S. President George W. Bush to speak at an Iranian university if the American leader ever traveled to the Islamic Republic, state-run television reported Friday.

As part of his controversial trip to New York, the Iranian leader spoke Monday at Columbia University, where he faced hostile questioning and a combative introduction by the university's president, who said Ahmadinejad exhibited all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

"If their president plans to travel to Iran, we will allow him to make a speech at a university," Ahmadinejad told state TV before leaving New York to travel to South America earlier this week.

His comments were aired on state TV Friday and signaled an unusual readiness by Iran to receive an American president after more than a quarter century with no diplomatic ties.

The harshness of Monday's introduction at the Columbia University forum prompted complaints in Iran and elsewhere that Ahmadinejad had been blind-sided by his host. Ahmadinejad complained that Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's speech had contained many insults and amounted to unfriendly treatment, but he otherwise appeared to take the comments in stride.

Back home, Iranians also were dismayed by Bollinger's introduction and said his words only added to their image of the United States as a bully.

Tensions are high between Iran and the U.S. over Washington allegations that Tehran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with deadly weapons that kill U.S. troops. Iran denies both claims.

Iran and the U.S cut off diplomatic relations in 1979 after Iranian militant students seized the U.S. Embassy and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Ahmadinejad left New York on Wednesday and traveled to friendlier ground in South America, first stopping in Bolivia - where he pledged $1 billion in investment - and then visiting Venezuela to meet his ally President Hugo Chavez on Thursday.

 
Title: Bush, the bomb and Iran
Post by: bigron on September 29, 2007, 01:27:51 pm
Bush, the bomb and Iran 

29/09/2007 05:13:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=40409 (http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=40409)
 
 As the Bush admin contemplates it, and the U.S. media normalizes it - just like the ‘run up’ to Iraq War - the Americans must stop the insanity of a military confrontation with Iran.


By Katrina vanden Heuvel

To bomb or not to bomb Iran, that's the question the Bush Administration appears to be debating these days, once again revealing the extraordinary disconnect between the White House and the American people.

With a catastrophic occupation of Iraq and polls showing the American public so skeptical about the use of military force that only eight percent support military action against Iran, there is nevertheless a clear and present danger that Cheney and the neocons will again prevail and lead this Administration into another disastrous military misadventure.

The parallels between now and the run-up to the Iraq War are troubling. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who warned the Bush administration in 2003 about the lack of a nuclear program in Iraq and was subsequently attacked for his position by the Bush machine, the neocons and by many in the mainstream media, has now struck a deal with Iran to improve access for inspectors and answer questions about its nuclear program within a defined timeline. ElBaradei has called for a "double time-out" of all enrichment activities and new sanctions.

The result of ElBaradei's attempt to shed light on Iran's nuclear program? More attacks by the Bush administration. More outright hit jobs from the Washington Post, or the more subtle shading by the New York Times that ultimately portrays ElBaradei as a dictatorial loon. The result is, once again, an amplifying of the Administration's drumbeat calling for war.

What is really needed right now - as was the case in 2003 - is for ElBaradei and the IAEA to be given a fair hearing and support. As Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of Bomb Scare, says, "ElBaradei is doing what any diplomatic leader should do: talking directly to a nation to find a way to resolve difficult issues short of the use of force… He's painfully aware of the lessons of the pre-Iraq War period. Then, he was convinced that there was no evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. He told the UN Security Council that in his reports of January and March 2003. But could he have done more to prevent a disastrous and unnecessary war? Weren't others too quiet, too complacent to stay in their assigned roles? He does not want to see this happen again, with even more catastrophic consequences."

Had ElBaradei's work been heeded before, imagine the treasure, the lives - not to mention our international reputation and security - that would have been saved. But instead of learning from the current tragedy in Iraq, and taking responsibility, this administration continues to build on its legacy of arrogance, and the media once again accepts the Administration line or fails to ask tough questions - making it more difficult for the IAEA to play the vital role that it could.

"Administration officials, including Secretary Rice, attacked the credibility of the director-general [in 2003] too," Cirincione says. "The Washington Post also blasted ElBaradei on his Iraq assessment. They were dead wrong. But this hasn't stopped them from attacking with guns blazing again. ElBaradei's record is far better on these issues than either the secretary of state's or the Washington Post's. You would think they would have some humility given the magnitude of their past mistakes. But some people have no shame."

In an excellent piece for Salon.com, Steven Clemons, Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, lays out the efforts by Cheney and the neocons to promote a strike against Iran by either Israel or the United States - perhaps through "some kind of ‘accidental'… contrived confrontation." A former administration official suggested to Clemons that Bush has now received a memo on "a bleak binary choice" - either take military action against Iran or accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. According to the official, Rice was to develop a "third option," but the official predicted that option would be "a corpse." "I don't see how we come out of this without military action," the official said.

Cirincione takes issue with the binary, either/or option. "U.S. hardliners are presenting a false, binary choice: either Iran buckles under the pressure of sanctions, or the U.S. will be forced to attack," he says.

 "Since they don't believe Iran will shut down its enrichment plant, then we must attack. This logic is the result of another false choice: either we attack Iran or Iran will get a nuclear bomb. Missing from the equation is direct U.S.-Iran negotiations. The sanctions are having an impact, but it's a mistake to believe that sanctions alone can compel a nation to comply or collapse. They never have. Sanctions can be a prod towards a negotiated compromise. What is missing now is the direct U.S.-Iranian talks that could forge such a compromise. ElBaradei is opening up that option. His lead should be followed by the United States, not scorned…. At the very least, we should try talking to a nation before we attack it."

The fulminations of Ahmadinejad against Israel aren't to be ignored. As Richard Falk reported in The Nation last year, "Such hostility [as Ahmadinejad's] would agitate the security concerns of any state, especially one that has faced threats throughout its history, as has Israel." But, as Falk and others have pointed out, the reality regarding Iran as a nuclear threat needs to be looked at squarely. Representative Dennis Kucinich has been at the forefront of that effort, as was evident in a hearing he conducted in October 2006. Distinguished witnesses at that hearing - including Cirincione, former IAEA/UNSCOM Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector Dr. David Kay, and Colonel Sam Gardiner (Ret.) - agreed that Iran is at least 5 years, but more likely 10 or more years, away from producing weapons-grade nuclear materials.

And then there are the consequences of a strike against Iran. As Cirincione testified at the Kucinich hearing, "If you like the war in Iraq, wait until you see the war in Iran. It will be a massive, global war."

Among the possible outcomes Falk listed in his Nation piece: "a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy"; a deep, worldwide recession as Iran - the world's 4th largest oil producer - embargoes its oil; and the strengthening of hardliners in Iran.

And Clemons writes of the probable military response by Iran in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both; "the reaction of the other world major powers [that] would be at best reserved"; and the destabilizing impact and popular unrest that would occur in Muslim countries with significant Shia minorities. Finally, there is the question of how effective any attack would be given that the Iranians have dispersed nuclear sites that are underground.

So what should be done exactly? Not what the Bush Administration - along with its compliant European allies like France and Germany - is trying to do. On the eve of the UN General Assembly meetings in New York, the Washington Post reports that a new "coalition of the willing" will work to impose broader military and economic sanctions against Iran - in what a Western diplomat dubbed a kind of "sanctions of the willing."

Instead, Cirincione argues, "We should learn from the North Korean and Libyan experience. Both were determined foes of the United States, both had weapons programs the U.S. wanted to stop, both were subjected to sanctions and U.S. pressure. But it was only when the United States began direct talks with these nations that we were able to develop a diplomatic path to end these programs. The Libya model is the polar opposite of the Iraq model: Instead of invading a nation to change a regime, you negotiate with a nation to change the regime's behavior. North Korea is a more difficult case than Libya, but the same approach shows signs of working there as well. Iran is the most difficult case of all, but direct dialogue with the pragmatists could very well produce a compromise that satisfies the security concerns of both Iran and the United States."

Additionally, as the IAEA marks its 50th Anniversary this year, and ElBaradei once again attempts to instill a measure of sanity into a dangerous game of brinksmanship, we should focus on ways to support the IAEA mission and make it as effective as possible. John Holum, who served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said recently, "We rely on the IAEA to safeguard nuclear material in facilities all over the world. Yet the IAEA has never spent in excess of 120 million U.S. dollars in any year to administer its worldwide nuclear materials inspection regime. At less than what the United States spends per day in Iraq, the safety of the world is dramatically compromised."

Ultimately, the international community needs to work in conjunction with the IAEA to secure real nonproliferation of weapons - and as Falk pointed out in his Nation article, that means multilateral nuclear disarmament: "… It is disastrous folly to suppose that some will agree to live forever beneath the nuclear Sword of Damocles without trying to obtain such weapons themselves."

In the meantime, while the Bush administration plays cowboy at the expense of global security - and influential newspapers like the Washington Post hurl hit jobs at ElBaradei, Congress should follow the wise advice of The Nation's defense correspondent, Michael Klare, who wrote in the magazine that legislation should be passed banning the use of federal funds for any attacks on Iran or Syria without prior authorization.

Most importantly, we need to confront the insanity of a military confrontation with Iran.

-- Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine




-- Middle East Online
 
Title: Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran
Post by: 12Cib on September 29, 2007, 04:33:31 pm

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092707.html (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092707.html)

Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran

By Robert Parry
September 28, 2007

So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.

In her view – and that of 75 other members of the U.S. Senate – President Bush hasn’t been aggressive or hasty enough in designating a large part of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guards, as an international terrorist organization.

The Senate resolution, approved on Sept. 26, recounts allegations that elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have supplied Iraqi Shiite militias with “explosively formed penetrator” bombs that have shattered U.S. armored vehicles and killed American troops.

In response, the Senate resolution calls on President Bush to list the Revolutionary Guards as “specially designated global terrorists.” In opposing the resolution, Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, warned that the move could be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Despite Webb’s protest, 29 Democrats joined Republicans and neoconservative Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to pass the “sense of the Senate” resolution. The Democrats egging Bush on included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, California’s Dianne Feinstein and Michigan’s Carl Levin.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana were the only Republicans voting no. Democratic presidential hopefuls Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also opposed the measure. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was absent but said he would have voted against it.

But Hillary Clinton, who also voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq in 2002 and staunchly supported the war for the next three years before reinventing herself as an Iraq War critic, now has reverted to her old hawkish self, jumping out ahead of Bush in urging a more hostile policy toward Iran.

Besides the extraordinary notion that Bush needs prodding into greater belligerence, there is the dangerous definitional problem of throwing the broad cloak of “terrorism” over Iraqis, who are resisting a U.S. military invasion force, and their alleged Iranian allies.

The classic definition of terrorism is violence directed against civilians to make a political point. The term shouldn't be applied to an indigenous population fighting an irregular war against a foreign occupying army, since that would have made everyone from George Washington to the French Resistance to the Afghanis confronting the Soviet occupation "terrorists."

Though Americans understandably detest anyone killing U.S. soldiers – whatever the circumstances – it is not "terrorism." In effect, the Senate resolution is choosing to use “terrorist” as a geopolitical curse word against any combatant who challenges U.S. military might.

While that "tough-guy/gal" stance might make political sense domestically – condemning anyone who dares take up arms against U.S. soldiers – the risk is that once the word “terrorist” is attached, it effectively dictates a course of action: negotiations with "terrorists" are prohibited and a host of draconian actions become unavoidable, even if they are counterproductive.

With a peaceful solution off the table, violence is almost guaranteed to escalate; more U.S. soldiers are likely to die; and American interests may be damaged. One might have thought that the lesson of loosely applying the epithet “terrorist” to an adversary would have been learned from the debacle that followed Bush falsely linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

That is a lesson now measured by the blood of some 3,800 dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. But it is a lesson that Hillary Clinton and those other senators – with their fingers to the political winds – apparently still haven’t learned.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
Title: Another Conservative NGO Pushing for War with Iran
Post by: Dig on September 29, 2007, 08:44:12 pm
Big Coffers and Rising Voice at Conservative Group
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?ex=1348804800&en=99584dd6163c334b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: September 30, 2007
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/30/us/30watch.190.jpg)
Bradley Blakeman, the president of Freedom’s Watch, who left the Bush administration as an assistant deputy to the president. Freedom’s Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq. Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy. Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group. Although the group declined to identify the experts, several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House. Some institute scholars have advocated a more confrontational policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including keeping military action as an option.  Last week, a Freedom’s Watch newspaper advertisement called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran “a terrorist.” The group is considering a national advertising campaign focused on Iran, a senior benefactor said, though Matt S. David, a spokesman for the group, declined to comment on those plans.

“If Hitler’s warnings were heeded when he wrote ‘Mein Kampf,’ he could have been stopped,” said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom’s Watch and a former deputy assistant to Mr. Bush. “Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region — he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel.”  With a forceful message and a roster of wealthy benefactors, Freedom’s Watch has quickly emerged from the crowded field of nonprofit advocacy groups as a conservative answer to the nine-year-old liberal MoveOn.org, which vehemently opposes the Iraq war. The idea for Freedom’s Watch was hatched in March at the winter meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalapan, Fla., where Vice President Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker, according to participants. Next week, the group is moving into a 10,000-square-foot office in the Chinatown section of Washington, with plans to employ as many as 50 people by early next year. One benefactor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by November 2008. Raising big money “will be easy,” the benefactor said, adding that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million. Mr. Blakeman would not confirm or deny whether any donor gave $1 million, or more, to the organization. Since the group is organized as a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to reveal its donors and it can not engage in certain types of partisan activities that directly support political candidates. It denies coordinating its activities with the White House, although many of its donors and organizers are well connected to the administration, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary. “Ideologically, we are inspired by much of Ronald Reagan’s thinking — peace through strength, protect and defend America, and prosperity through free enterprise,” Mr. Fleischer said.

Among the group’s founders are Sheldon G. Adelson, the chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, who ranks sixth on the Forbes Magazine list of the world’s billionaires; Mel Sembler, a shopping center magnate based in St. Petersburg, Fla., who served as the ambassador to Italy and Australia; John M. Templeton Jr., the conservative philanthropist from Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and Anthony H. Gioia, a former ambassador to Malta who heads an investment group based in Buffalo, N.Y. All four men are long-time prolific donors who have raised money on behalf of Republican and conservative causes. For years, the group’s founders lamented MoveOn’s growing influence, derived in large part from its grass-roots efforts, especially on the debate about the Iraq war. “A bunch of us activists kept watching MoveOn and its attacks on the war, and it just got to be obnoxious,” said Mr. Sembler, a friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. “We decided we needed to do something about this, because the conservative side was not responding.” Mr. Sembler, who is on the board of directors of the American Enterprise Institute, said the impetus for Freedom’s Watch “came out of A.E.I.” last winter. He said that at an institute event in December 2006 he listened to retired Gen. Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan, an A.E.I. scholar, talk about the need for a troop increase in Iraq, a plan adopted by Mr. Bush in January. “I realized it was not only what we needed to do,” Mr. Sembler said, “but we needed to articulate this message across the country.”  Mr. Sembler also said he was frustrated that he heard reports at institute events earlier this year that the increase was working, but that the news media was not reflecting the progress.
Title: Bush, Ahmadinejad United In Love Of UT Longhorns
Post by: 12Cib on September 29, 2007, 10:12:06 pm
(http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/a862dc25e021c475181a8b00cf9f9473.jpg)
(http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/6208e95f09f0d35549517e265b29acf6.jpg)

http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-common-interests/bush-ahmadinejad-united-in-love-of-ut-longhorns-303599.php (http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-common-interests/bush-ahmadinejad-united-in-love-of-ut-longhorns-303599.php)

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=2&contentid=4720 (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=2&contentid=4720)
Title: Iran labels CIA and US Army "terrorist organizations"
Post by: DCUBED on September 30, 2007, 01:25:38 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

Lets see how the neo-cons react to this one. They will probably start beating the war drums to WW3 harder than ever before.
Title: Re: Iran labels CIA and US Army "terrorist organizations"
Post by: ManMs0808 on September 30, 2007, 12:31:00 pm
Well, our Government is the "terrorists" Thats exactly what they are. TERRORISTS. We invade, terrorize, kill, innocent people for nothing. No wonder they are mad, no wonder they fight back, no wonder they hate us. We MUST have a coup , to overthrow them. WE MUST REVOLT People must not stand for this anymore. Our president , should not be allowed to go to war, on his own, ALL decisions, MUST be by the people. Everything should only go in front of the people, not congress, not the president, only the people.He is not our overlord. Only the people should make our determinations.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on September 30, 2007, 01:48:15 pm
House of Rothschild uses Nazi style psyops in America to kill over 10 million innocent children in the Middle East.

Murdoch, Greenspan, Benanke, Cheney, Clinton, Pelosi, Schultz, Buffett, Rockefeller all promoting war with Iran to boost the economy.  We will change the images in the following videos to the same images we now see in Iraq so that Rothschild can have the USA as the instigators of WWIII, just like they did with Germany in WWII.  Just like Bush did with Iraq in Kuwait, etc. etc.

An insider look at the reality of Iran
(http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app=vss&contentid=93d4a66433ce3f97&offsetms=5000&itag=w160&lang=en&sigh=IocikQ7mc7LDYUHJY28zE5NhKbE)
Rageh inside iran (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9161934809152225169)

Iran: Another Perspective A Photo Tour
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/Qkkt7_dGW-s/2.jpg)
5 min - Feb 10, 2007 -    (431 ratings)   
Tehran Iranian Persian city photo pictures amazing beautiful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkkt7_dGW-s)

Pictures of Iran
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/BG4DFVM4rQk/2.jpg)
5 min - Sep 16, 2007
collection of picture of iran with music....iran persia persian iranian vatan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG4DFVM4rQk)

Images from Tehran
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/qy4difUazd0/2.jpg)
9 min - Feb 10, 2007 -    (112 ratings)   
The beautiful and vibrant city of Tehran, capital of Iran....Iran Tehran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy4difUazd0)

Images of Iran
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/iQkkAkNwIDw/2.jpg)
2 min - Jan 23, 2007 -    (29 ratings)   
Unusual images of Tehran, Iran show that people are not as different as feared....Iran Tehran peace peacetrain anti-war neoconservative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQkkAkNwIDw)

Title: Iranian and US Governments are not Enemies
Post by: Mark Brewer on September 30, 2007, 01:56:12 pm
One of the greatest propaganda stunts ever has been pulled by the US and Israeli governments. This has been their successful promotion of the idea that they are opposed to the Muslim Iranian government.
The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI] had a lot to do with Bush's war, or at least what people think is Bush's war. Blaming Bush, Israel and "neoconservatives" for the Iraq war actually covers up the fact that the US and Israeli governments are not enemies of the Islamic Iranian government and the supposed hostility between the three is a domestic propaganda stunt. I can now prove that the reason the US government went to war with Saddam in 2003 was to help out Iran. In the words of senator Sam Brownback, "The 2000 Republican Platform called for the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act and support for the Iraqi opposition. I, along with many of my colleagues, have long supported that policy and hope the Administration will work to advance it."

http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=175600&

The Iraq Liberation Act was signed into law by Clinton on October 31, 1998.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
 
Clinton would not have been able to sign the bill if Ahmed Chalabi had not lobbied congress.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/sfrc-hearing-6-28-00.htm
 
Chalabi was the head of the Iraqi National Congress, and umbrella organization that had included SCIRI in its membership.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0211_ir1.htm
 
More about SCIRI and the fact that it is an arm of the Iranian government.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sciri.htm
 
Chalabi was known in 1997 to have been an Iranian agent, so all of this was planned awhile back.
http://www.spitfirelist.com/f502.html
 
Quote from little known Congressional Research Service report.
"Iran is supporting the U.S.-engineered political process in Iraq because doing so favors pro-Iranian movements in Iraq, which have numeric strength and a degree of popularity." Page 6
http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/iran_iraq.pdf
Title: Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
Post by: DCUBED on September 30, 2007, 03:56:57 pm
More war-mongering from Faux News

http://youtube.com/user/newshoundsblog
Title: U.S. Plans Major Middle East Arms Sales
Post by: 12Cib on September 30, 2007, 04:20:55 pm
    
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_09/MiddleEastArms.asp (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_09/MiddleEastArms.asp)

U.S. Plans Major Middle East Arms Sales

David Houska

Citing threats from Iran, Syria, and various terrorist groups, the Bush administration is offering more than $60 billion in new weapons and military assistance to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the latest U.S. Middle East arms sales campaign July 30 just before she and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates traveled to the region. The specifics of the deals must still be negotiated, but the agreements are anticipated to be ready for formal congressional notification by mid-September.

Although Rice characterized the proposals as the continuation of long-standing U.S. policy, she said that the deals were intended to “help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns underscored the threat from Iran, saying that the future sales will “provide a deterrence against Iranian expansionism and Iranian aggression in the future.”

Under the proposed agreements, the United States will supply $3 billion and $1.3 billion of military aid to Israel and Egypt, respectively, each year for 10 years starting in fiscal year 2009, which will begin Oct. 1, 2008. The United States has provided military assistance to Israel and Egypt since the 1970s. The new proposals represent a 25 percent increase in aid to Israel and a continuation of Egyptian aid at present levels. Burns signed the agreement with Israel on Aug. 16.

U.S. negotiators also are discussing major new arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the other five countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates). The sales have been widely reported to be worth around $20 billion with the lion’s share going to Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency catalogues almost $17 billion in U.S. arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia since fiscal year 1998. An October 2006 Congressional Research Service report says that Saudi Arabia has imported more than $50 billion of weapons over that general period, making it far and away the largest arms importer in the developing world.

Some U.S. lawmakers quickly denounced the Saudi arms sale and have said that they will attempt to block any sale of “high technology armaments” presented for congressional approval. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) had the harshest words for the proposed sale, citing lack of Saudi support for U.S. efforts in Iraq and in fighting terrorism. In an Aug. 2 press release, he called the deal “mind-bogglingly bad policy because the [Saudis] at every turn have been uncooperative. The idea that we are going to reward the [Saudis] with precision weaponry is a stunningly bad idea.”

 The 1976 Arms Export Control Act mandates that Congress be notified of all proposed arms sales above $14 million, with a higher threshold for sales to Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and NATO members. By law, Congress has 30 days after notification to stop proposed sales by passing a resolution with a majority vote in each house. However, a two-thirds majority would effectively be required in each house to override an expected presidential veto.

Weiner and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) have announced that they intend to introduce such a resolution when Congress is formally notified of the sales. In an Aug. 2 letter to President George W. Bush, a bipartisan group of 114 representatives questioned whether Saudi Arabia was a true U.S. ally. The letter noted that Saudi King Abdullah recently called the U.S. mission in Iraq an “illegitimate foreign occupation” and that more than 50 percent of all suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudis.

Other members of Congress were more ambivalent. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) has said that he is seeking a complete briefing once the sales are finalized and will “see where we are then.” Lantos said in a July 28 statement that although he was glad that U.S. allies had seen the danger of Iran, “we particularly want to ensure that these arrangements include only defensive systems.” The Saudi deal reportedly would include satellite-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (J-DAMs), fighter aircraft upgrades, and new warships.

Israel historically has opposed U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and members of the Israeli media and political right have expressed concern that weapons sold to Saudi Arabia could be used against Israel or even the United States. The critics fear that the Saudi government could be overthrown and the weapons fall into the hands of Islamic extremists. Iran’s air force currently flies F-14 fighters that were sold to the pro-American shah just before the 1979 revolution that brought the current regime to power.

Still, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave tacit approval to the proposal. He told the Israeli Cabinet that “[w]e understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.” State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey told reporters July 30 that the United States will abide by its long-standing policy of ensuring Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over its neighbors.
The U.S. arms effort coincides with several other confirmed and rumored arms sales to the Middle East. France announced Aug. 2 a $405 million arms deal with Libya in which it would provide Libya with anti-tank missiles and radio equipment. Israeli media have reported that Iran is preparing to place a massive order with Russia for fighters and airborne tankers, but these unconfirmed stories have been categorically denied in Moscow and Tehran.

 
The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization.
If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution.
Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor.

© 1997-2007 Arms Control Association,
1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273
Title: Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq'
Post by: Dig on October 01, 2007, 02:12:51 am
Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq'
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_War_with_Iran_will_0930.html
Greg Wasserstrom Published: Sunday September 30, 2007


The only thing different about the Bush Administration's rhetoric about Iran and statements made regarding Iraq before the US invasion in 2003 are the words chosen, says journalist Seymour Hersh.

"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."

The Bush Administration is all but set to authorize a campaign of limited, surgical airstrikes against Iranian targets, Hersh reports in the New Yorker's latest edition. In his piece, Hersh writes, "During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British 'were on board'... Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution."

The sites in Iran being targeted, however, reflect the change in the White House's selling of armed conflict with Iran.

"Instead of... hitting the various [nuclear] facilities we know that exist, instead they're going to hit the Iranians as payback for hitting us [in Iraq]," Hersh told Blitzer in the CNN interview.

Such targets, Hersh says, would include Iran's Revolutionary Guard headquarters and other sites of Iran's alleged support for the insurgency in Iraq.

Hersh does not seem to think that direct conflict with Iran is inevitable however. He writes: "I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the 'execute order' that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group."

Those statements were echoed in the piece by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. "'A lot depends on how stupid the Iranians will be,' Brzezinski told me. 'Will they cool off Ahmadinejad and tone down their language?' The Bush Administration, by charging that Iran was interfering in Iraq, was aiming 'to paint it as 'We're responding to what is an intolerable situation,'' Brzezinski said. 'This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we're going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand.'"

READ HERSH'S FULL ARTICLE AT THIS LINK (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh).

VIDEO FROM LATE EDITION, BROADCAST SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 HERE (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_War_with_Iran_will_0930.html).
Title: Re: Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq'
Post by: EchelonMonitor on October 01, 2007, 06:41:09 am
I thought protecting the troops was Blackwater's job  ::)
Title: Russia Evacuates Entire Bushehr Staff
Post by: ManMs0808 on October 01, 2007, 12:28:35 pm
         In a sign that the U.N. security council based diplomacy is loosing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. 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 OCT. 15th, 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.               
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 01, 2007, 02:34:05 pm
IMPORTANT REVIEW OF BOOK DEALING WITH IRANS ATEMPTS TO AVOID WAR

Review
The Victor?
By Peter W. Galbraith
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
by Trita Parsi
Yale University Press, 361 pp., $28.00

VISIT:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20651 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20651)
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 01, 2007, 02:40:24 pm
So What About Iran?

By Uri Avnery

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18478.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18478.htm)

09/29/07 "ICH" -- -- A RESPECTED American paper posted a scoop this week: Vice-President Dick Cheney, the King of Hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.

Far-fetched? Not really. It is rather like what happened in 1956. Then France, Israel and Britain secretly planned to attack Egypt in order to topple Gamal Abd-al-Nasser (`regime change` in today`s lingo.) It was agreed that Israeli paratroops would be dropped near the Suez Canal, and that the resulting conflict would serve as a pretext for the French and British to occupy the canal area in order to `secure` the waterway. This plan was implemented (and failed miserably).

What would happen to us if we agreed to Cheney`s plan? Our pilots would risk their lives to bomb the heavily defended Iranian installations. Then, Iranian missiles would rain down on our cities. Hundreds, perhaps thousands would be killed. All this in order to supply the Americans with a pretext to go to war.

Would the pretext have stood up? In other words, is the US obliged to enter a war on our side, even when that war is caused by us? In theory, the answer is yes. The current agreements between the US and Israel say that America has to come to Israel`s aid in any war - whoever started it.

Is there any substance to this leak? Hard to know. But it strengthens the suspicion that an attack on Iran is more imminent than people imagine.

DO BUSH, Cheney & Co. indeed intend to attack Iran?

I don`t know, but my suspicion that they might is getting stronger.

Why? Because George Bush is nearing the end of his term of office. If it ends the way things look now, he will be remembered as a very bad - if not the worst - president in the annals of the republic. His term started with the Twin Towers catastrophe, which reflected no great credit on the intelligence agencies, and would come to a close with the grievous Iraq fiasco.

There is only one year left to do something impressive and save his name in the history books. In such situations, leaders tend to look for military adventures. Taking into account the man`s demonstrated character traits, the war option suddenly seems quite frightening.

True, the American army is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even people like Bush and Cheney could not dream, at this time, of invading a country four times larger than Iraq, with three times the population.

But, quite possibly the war-mongers are whispering in Bush`s ear: What are you worrying about? No need for an invasion. Enough to bomb Iran, as we bombed Serbia and Afghanistan. We shall use the smartest bombs and the most sophisticated missiles against the two thousand or so targets, in order to destroy not only the Iranian nuclear sites but also their military installations and government offices. `We shall bomb them back into the stone age,` as an American general once said about Vietnam, or `turn their clock back 20 years,` as the Israeli Air Force general Dan Halutz said about Lebanon.

That`s a tempting idea. The US will only use its mighty Air Force, missiles of all kinds and the powerful aircraft-carriers, which are already deployed in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. All these can be sent into action at any time on short notice. For a failed president approaching the end of his term, the idea of an easy, short war must have an immense attraction. And this president has already shown how hard it is for him to resist temptations of this kind.

WOULD THIS indeed be such an easy operation, a `piece of cake` in American parlance?

I doubt it.

Even `smart` bombs kill people. The Iranians are a proud, resolute and highly motivated people. They point out that for two thousand years they have never attacked another country, but during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war they have amply proved their determination to defend their own when attacked.

Their first reaction to an American attack would be to close the Straits of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf. That would choke off a large part of the world`s oil supply and cause an unprecedented world-wide economic crisis. To open the straits (if this is at all possible), the US army would have to capture and hold large areas of Iranian territory.

The short and easy war would turn into a long and hard war. What does that mean for us in Israel?

There can be little doubt that if attacked, Iran will respond as it has promised: by bombarding us with the rockets it is preparing for this precise purpose. That will not endanger Israel`s existence, but it will not be pleasant either.

If the American attack turns into a long war of attrition, and if the American public comes to see it as a disaster (as is happening right now with the Iraqi adventure), some will surely put the blame on Israel. It is no secret that the Pro-Israel lobby and its allies - the (mostly Jewish) neo-cons and the Christian Zionists - are pushing America into this war, just as they pushed it into Iraq. For Israeli policy, the hoped-for gains of this war may turn into giant losses - not only for Israel, but also for the American Jewish community.

IF PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not exist, the Israeli government would have had to invent him.

He has got almost everything one could wish for in an enemy. He has a big mouth. He is a braggart. He enjoys causing scandals. He is a Holocaust denier. He prophesies that Israel will `vanish from the map` (though he did not say, as falsely reported, the he would wipe Israel off the map.)

This week, the pro-Israel lobby organized big demonstrations against his visit to New York. They were a huge success - for Ahmadinejad. He has realized his dream of becoming the center of world attention. He has been given the opportunity to voice his arguments against Israel -- some outrageous, some valid - before a world-wide audience.

But Ahmadinejad is not Iran. True, he has won popular elections, but Iran is like the orthodox parties in Israel: it is not their politicians who count, but their rabbis. The Shiite religious leadership makes the decisions and commands the armed forces, and this body is neither boastful nor vociferous not scandal-mongering. It exercises a lot of caution.

If Iran was really so eager to obtain a nuclear bomb, it would have acted in utmost silence and kept as low a profile as possible (as Israel did). The swaggering of Ahmadinejad would hurt this effort more than any enemy of Iran could.

It is highly unpleasant to think about a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands (and, indeed, in any hands.) I hope it can be avoided by offering inducements and/or imposing sanctions. But even if this does not succeed, it would not be the end of the world, nor the end of Israel. In this area, more than in any other, Israel`s deterrent power is immense. Even Ahmadinejad will not risk an exchange of queens - the destruction of Iran for the destruction of Israel.

NAPOLEON SAID that to understand a country`s policy, one has only to look at the map.

If we do this, we shall see that there is no objective reason for war between Israel and Iran. On the contrary, for a long time it was believed in Jerusalem that the two countries were natural allies.

David Ben-Gurion advocated an `alliance of the periphery`. He was convinced that the entire Arab world is the natural enemy of Israel, and that, therefore, allies should be sought on the fringes of the Arab world - Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Chad etc. (He also looked for allies inside the Arab world - communities that are not Sunni-Arab, such as the Maronites, the Copts, the Kurds, the Shiites and others.)

At the time of the Shah, very close connections existed between Iran and Israel, some positive, some negative, some outright sinister. The Shah helped to build a pipeline from Eilat to Askelon, in order to transport Iranian oil to the Mediterranean, bypassing the Suez Canal. The Israel internal secret service (Shabak) trained its notorious Iranian counterpart (Savak). Israelis and Iranians acted together in Iraqi Kurdistan, helping the Kurds against their Sunni-Arab oppressors.

The Khomeini revolution did not, in the beginning, put an end to this alliance, it only drove it underground. During the Iran-Iraq war, Israel supplied Iran with arms, on the assumption that anyone fighting Arabs is our friend. At the same time, the Americans supplied arms to Saddam Hussein - one of the rare instances of a clear divergence between Washington and Jerusalem. This was bridged in the Iran-Contra Affair, when the Americans helped Israel to sell arms to the Ayatollahs.

Today, an ideological struggle is raging between the two countries, but it is mainly fought out on the rhetorical and demagogical level. I dare to say that Ahmadinejad doesn`t give a fig for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he only uses it to make friends in the Arab world. If I were a Palestinian, I would not rely on it. Sooner or later, geography will tell and Israeli-Iranian relations will return to what they were - hopefully on a far more positive basis.

ONE THING I am ready to predict with confidence: whoever pushes for war against Iran will come to regret it.

Some adventures are easy to get into but hard to get out of.

The last one to find this out was Saddam Hussein. He thought that it would be a cakewalk - after all, Khomeini had killed off most of the officers, and especially the pilots, of the Shah`s military. He believed that one quick Iraqi blow would be enough to bring about the collapse of Iran. He had eight long years of war to regret it.

Both the Americans and we may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli author and activist. He is the head of the Israeli peace movement, "Gush Shalom".

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 01, 2007, 02:45:34 pm
The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

By Democracy Now

In a speech at Columbia University, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended Iran's right to nuclear power but denied Iran was seeking to build nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad's appearance sparked widespread protests at Columbia. We speak with Trita Parsi, author of "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States" and Baruch professor Ervand Abrahamian, co-author of "Targeting Iran."

Se video/audio & transcript here:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18476.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18476.htm)


Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 01, 2007, 03:42:21 pm
http://debka.com/ (http://debka.com/)

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBKAfile reports: Russians employed at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor suddenly depart in a body, according to local Arab sources

October 1, 2007, 11:01 AM (GMT+02:00)

 

 
The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28, and flew back to Russia. The agency’s one-liner offers no source or explanation. DEBKAfile have obtained no corroboration of its report from any other source.

The story appears to have originated with the ethnic Arabs who live near the reactor or who come in contact with its Russian staff. If true, DEBKAfile can offer three hypothetical scenarios to account for the Russians’ precipitate departure:

1. Another crisis has cropped up in the patchy Russian-Iranian dealings over the Bushehr reactor. This is unlikely because Russian president Vladimar Putin is due for a high-profile visit to Tehran on Oct. 16, when he plans to sign a series of nuclear accords with the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, Moscow, like Beijing, stands foursquare behind Iran’s efforts to delay harsher sanctions for its continued uranium enrichment. Only this week, the two powers gained Iran two to three months’ grace by forcing a delay in the UN Security Council session that was to have approved a third round of sanctions.

2. Moscow or Tehran has been tipped off that a US or Israeli attack is imminent on the Bushehr plant and Iran’s other nuclear installations and acted to whip Russian personnel out of harm’s way.

3. Moscow has learned that an Iranian pre-emptive attack is imminent against American targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf and/or Israel.

Aside from these hypothetical scenarios, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report that the Khorramshar News Agency keeps its ear to the ground on happenings in Bushehr, because it is claimed by Khuzistan separatists as Arab land which they will fight to liberate from Iranian “occupation.”

 
 
 
Title: Russia Evacuates Entire Bushehr Staff
Post by: Rock on October 01, 2007, 04:20:21 pm
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/011007_russia_evacuates.htm

This is very serious.  What a mistake it will be to start a war with Iran.



Rock
Title: Is the Bush/Cheney attack on Iran also an attack on the American people?
Post by: EchelonMonitor on October 02, 2007, 04:31:44 am
Seymour Hersh reports in this week's New Yorker that Bush and Cheney seemed determined to push ahead with their attack on Iran.

He reported that his insiders tell him that since the Iranian nuclear threat didn't work as justification for attack, they're now pushing the alleged reports of Iran supplying ied's that kill our troops as a reason to attack Iran.

I said alleged, but if you watch mainstream television, they're failing to use that qualifier, instead stating that it is a fact that Iran is supplying the ied's, when there is no evidence to back up that claim, and experts say that with the massive amount of munitions in Iraq, they don't have to be imported from Iran.

Hersh also reported that his insiders tell him that Bush and Cheney "don't give a rat's ass" about the 2008 election.  It could be that this is because they know there won't BE a 2008 election.

It could be that after attacking Iran, they plan a false-flag attack inside the US, blamed on Iranians, to use as justification for declaring martial law and cancelling the elections.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Is the Bush/Cheney attack on Iran also an attack on the American people?
Post by: EchelonMonitor on October 02, 2007, 05:16:15 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIZlYJCPZmY

To Bush and Cheney:

The Iranian people are not some demonic caricatures of human beings, but are real people just like Americans.

DON'T KILL THEM!!!
Title: Re: Is the Bush/Cheney attack on Iran also an attack on the American people?
Post by: Rufus Shinra on October 02, 2007, 06:15:28 am
I don't know what to think. Don't know if elections will be held or not.

But to answer the question "Is the Bush/Cheney attack on Iran also an attack on the American people?"...

YES, it is. Anything they do is an attack on all of humanity, in one way or another.
And by "they" I don't mean just Bush/Cheney, but the whole NWO Crime Syndicate.

And in war, wether it's a genuine justified war or a complete lie, even small fluffy bunnies can be turned
into "demonic caricatures" and look like evil terrorists with the help of propaganda through the television.

Then it's ok for them to die. As long as the people watching Fox News believes it.

But the NWOCS couldn't really care less what they're killing.
If they could divide and conquer up Random Country X,
without losing public suppport, then they would do so...
Title: Re: Is the Bush/Cheney attack on Iran also an attack on the American people?
Post by: EchelonMonitor on October 02, 2007, 07:23:30 am
Yeah, have you seen The US War On Democracy yet?

There's a chilling interview with a former CIA operative who expresses very clearly that they have absolutely no concern for human life.

I posted it at http://infowars.ning.com

I had always wondered how United Fruit got the CIA to overthrow the Guatemala president who was threatening their operations there--United Fruit Dulles got his brother, head of the CIA Dulles to do it.
Title: Re: Is the Bush/Cheney attack on Iran also an attack on the American people?
Post by: jbrid1138 on October 02, 2007, 08:31:07 am
Seymour Hersh reports in this week's New Yorker that Bush and Cheney seemed determined to push ahead with their attack on Iran.

He reported that his insiders tell him that since the Iranian nuclear threat didn't work as justification for attack, they're now pushing the alleged reports of Iran supplying ied's that kill our troops as a reason to attack Iran.

I said alleged, but if you watch mainstream television, they're failing to use that qualifier, instead stating that it is a fact that Iran is supplying the ied's, when there is no evidence to back up that claim, and experts say that with the massive amount of munitions in Iraq, they don't have to be imported from Iran.

Hersh also reported that his insiders tell him that Bush and Cheney "don't give a rat's ass" about the 2008 election.  It could be that this is because they know there won't BE a 2008 election.

It could be that after attacking Iran, they plan a false-flag attack inside the US, blamed on Iranians, to use as justification for declaring martial law and cancelling the elections.

What do you think?

I think you might be right.  This very thing has been at the back of my own mind since it became clear when the man said 'being a Dictator would be okay as long as he was the Dictator' followed by a chuckle.  That shook me awake to this possibility // And then slowly but surely the changing of the laws (the loss of our Rights) all seem to be moving us in that direction you so clearly state.  I have voiced this to my own family, they think I've lost all common sense in this regard -- I hope I have.  I still have this feeling (hopefully dead wrong about it) that the recent nuclear warhead transport aboard the B52 bomber was either a test to see how things reacted // or // a false flag that was detected and stopped because there was too much information leaked out about it // I have this sick feeling that an 'example' was to be targeted to our own soil here as a ruse to override any presidential election -- Don't change horses in the middle of a stream (that old saying) has an altogether evil sick twisted meaning to me about it these days.
Title: Re: Russia Evacuates Entire Bushehr Staff
Post by: ManMs0808 on October 02, 2007, 09:28:34 am
Yes, I agree Rock,  this is very very serious. We know this would be the worst mistake, the worst thing that can happen.  I think they know this is the worst that can happen also. But I think this is exactly what they want. To me, I just think about how , first we are in Afghanistan, then Iraq, then all of sudden, Iran???? When I look at it this way, its ridiculous, its so obvious. Bush has given himself permission to attack the Iranian Guard, his excuse for going into Iran. Gee isn't that so unbelievable?? These people do not want a war, and Putin has even warned them, you are going to get bombed. Attacking Iran is the worst that will happen for us also. This will cause so much more chaos for us. I hear they are all already gone, out of the U.S. in Dubai. How convenient. Oh well we will just go there and get them.
Title: Re: Russia Evacuates Entire Bushehr Staff
Post by: Rufus Shinra on October 02, 2007, 10:25:05 am
first we are in Afghanistan, then Iraq, then all of sudden, Iran????

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia... or was it Eurasia?

No, Eurasia is our ally. We are at war with Eastasia. But Eastasia is our enemy, and they've always been our ally.
The war in Eurasia is going well. Eastasia does not exist - it's just a conspiracy theory.

Eastasia is good and they're our friends.

2 + 2 = 19 (hijackers with boxcutters)
Title: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: ManMs0808 on October 02, 2007, 10:48:07 am
       Iran threatened Monday to attack some 170 American Targets in the Middle East and around the world if it is attacked by Israel or the U.S., Israel radio reported. The revolutionary guards ground forces commands able to easily kill American nationals staying in the Middle East. On Sunday former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton told tory delegates in Britain that efforts by the U.K. and the E.U. to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: Rock on October 02, 2007, 10:54:21 am
If USA attacks Iran, it will be World War Three!

No one will be secure,



Rock
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: DAVIDENGLAND on October 02, 2007, 10:57:01 am
If you own an oil field all this friction is great for business.
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: ManMs0808 on October 02, 2007, 11:07:21 am
Well we know that is their plan, so we best be ready!  Stockpiling supplies, and being aware.  ???
Title: Putin tells Iran: They are going to bomb you!
Post by: ManMs0808 on October 02, 2007, 11:25:04 am
          In a sign that the U.N. security council based diplomacy is loosing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. 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 Oct. 15th, the end of the Holy month of Ramadan. Israel would bomb the first targets while America would orchestrate a second wave of strikes, the report said.
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: Dig on October 02, 2007, 11:10:13 pm
       Iran threatened Monday to attack some 170 American Targets in the Middle East and around the world if it is attacked by Israel or the U.S., Israel radio reported. The revolutionary guards ground forces commands able to easily kill American nationals staying in the Middle East. On Sunday former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton told tory delegates in Britain that efforts by the U.K. and the E.U. to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Iran threatens to attack 170 US targets
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411524152&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Iran threatened Monday to attack some 170 American targets in the Middle East and around the world if it is attacked by Israel or the US, Israel Radio reported.
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImage&blobwhere=1187779139876&cachecontrol=5%3A0%3A0+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true)
Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
Photo: AP [file]

A high-ranking officer from the country's Revolutionary Guards told the force's official journal, The Guards, that Teheran succeeded, after extended and comprehensive work, to identify hundreds of strategic American targets in the Middle East and around the world.  The Revolutionary Guards' Ground Forces Command is able to easily kill American nationals staying in the Middle East. "Several years ago they [Americans] were far away from us by thousands of kilometers. Now they are so close we can touch them," the Iranian general said. On Sunday former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.
_____________________________________________

The Vineyard of the Saker
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/iran-threatens-to-attack-170-us-targets.html
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Iran threatens to attack 170 US targets

The Jerusalem Post reports that Iran threatened Monday to attack some 170 American targets in the Middle East and around the world if it is attacked by Israel or the US, Israel Radio reported.

A high-ranking officer from the country's Revolutionary Guards told the force's official journal, The Guards, that Teheran succeeded, after extended and comprehensive work, to identify hundreds of strategic American targets in the Middle East and around the world.

The Revolutionary Guards' Ground Forces Command is able to easily kill American nationals staying in the Middle East. "Several years ago they [Americans] were far away from us by thousands of kilometers. Now they are so close we can touch them," the Iranian general said.

On Sunday former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: DAVIDENGLAND on October 03, 2007, 04:19:05 am
What's the concensus on here in regards to an attack on Iran?? Personally I think they've tested the water and it's too hot and barring a major unforeseen incident I just can't see it happening. Also I don't think the support for an attack is there both in the US and from the rest of the world. And let's not forget that Iran has ICBMs that can travel 4700km so the last thing anyone needs is those things flying around all over the place. All this beating of the war drums looks to me like Bushco squeezing out some more profit for their buddies in the oil business. The Iranians also profit from rising oil prices so it's also to their advantage to square up to Bush and call his bluff. 
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: Dig on October 03, 2007, 05:12:31 am
What's the concensus on here in regards to an attack on Iran?? Personally I think they've tested the water and it's too hot and barring a major unforeseen incident I just can't see it happening. Also I don't think the support for an attack is there both in the US and from the rest of the world. And let's not forget that Iran has ICBMs that can travel 4700km so the last thing anyone needs is those things flying around all over the place. All this beating of the war drums looks to me like Bushco squeezing out some more profit for their buddies in the oil business. The Iranians also profit from rising oil prices so it's also to their advantage to square up to Bush and call his bluff. 

i think the plan is for US to lose, that is the problem.  that is why we are disclosing the insanity of this, while FOX and others are still acting like it is no big deal.

tehran will be our stalingrad (hitler was proded into invading stalingrad, it was the end for him-we are being proded into invading iran)

i am not aware that they have ICBMs though
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: DAVIDENGLAND on October 03, 2007, 05:36:47 am
Yeah apparently so I remember reading about them in early 2006.

Here's a link (don't know how credible the source is but there's plenty of reports if you search - Iran BM-25 ICBMs ) -


http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1251
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: EchelonMonitor on October 03, 2007, 05:58:28 am
And if Iranian agents can't pull off an attack inside the US, the Bush regime will just do a false-flag attack and blame it on them.

The attack on Iran is all that is needed to set events in motion leading to martial law.

Here's the scenario:

Attack Iran

Stage a "terrorist attack" in the US and blame it on Iranians, using it as an excuse for declaring martial law
 
Declare martial law to stop protests, stop an annoying congress, and take full control

Call off the 2008 elections saying that a nation under attack needs stability in leadership

Have a big party at Bohemian Grove celebrating the death of America
Title: Nuclear Attack on Iran could wipe out 3mil/35mil radiated
Post by: snowykittenz on October 03, 2007, 06:04:38 am
I have been thinking about it alot recently, about the potential war with Iran. It struck me as to why, other than oil, would it be so essential that the elitists invade and take over Iran.

Then after realising from the End Game trailer that all these people care about is wiping out populations, this is the conclusion I have come to.

I've done a bit of research but not much. Any help would be apprechiated in bringing this teorey upto scratch.

Theorey:
-A Nuclear explosion occurs in Iran, near Bushehr.
-The US military plants and detonates the device.
-The Word Press quickly rush to cover up the fact it was the US military.
-The finger is pointed at Iran, with the blame for the catastophy being pinned on them.
-The US claim that the nuclear device was an Iranian one.

So, from all of this, the potential fallout form a detonated device, depending on the size, could devestate and wipe out potentially thounsands.

If you haven't noticed, Iran is typically the centre of the Old Worlds (That is the map of the wrold before they found the Americas).

According to online maps, wind currents from Iran spread out to all the continents: Asia, Eurpoe, Africa & South America.

From the Chernobyl incident, we already know that fallout from nuclear catastophe's can end up wiping out thousands due to cancers and other afflictions and illnesses associated with radiation poisoning.
Men and women are both sterile...or are too afraid to have babies due to the deformaties.

The area affected after Chernobyl is still a huge area. Keep in mind that Chernobyl was only a small incident on the disaster scale compared with the potential of a modern Nuclear bomb.

As you can see, this theorey is very edgey and has lots of holes in it.

Keep in mind its only a theorey...but when Nuclear warheads have been going missing off of B52's in america...and with the US accusing Iran of having Nuclear WMD's...

You can get my point.

Discuss.

Amy
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: chris jones on October 03, 2007, 06:13:54 am
The subject Iran threatens.

I see this as they are declaring the right to defend their people.
Or, if your going to blow the hell out of us, bomb our nation we will retaliate.
They will fight back.
Or they coud sit in the homes and wait to be exterminated and accept it.
The regime wants Iraq, pure and simple.
The regime wanted Iraq, same deal, pure and simple. No matter WMD's was a prefabricated lie to us and forthat matter the world.
What concerns me at this moment in time is when they will light the fuse, another 911. This time Iran will be the culprit, so they will say. cj
Title: Re: Theorey: Nuclear Attack on Iran could potentially wipe out thousands
Post by: Dig on October 03, 2007, 06:16:35 am
The Union of Concerned Scientists show the holocaust that Americans would be committing if they allowed the USA to bomb Iran

Fallout with nuke on Iran
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/Tb-VkYJRbW8/default.jpg) (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb-VkYJRbW8)

MILLIONS not Thousands...


3 MILLION DEAD

35 MILLION WITH EXPOSURE!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 03, 2007, 06:27:15 am
Beating the Drums for the Next War!!

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001319 (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001319)


Last week brought heads of state and senior diplomats in number to New York for the opening of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It also brought President Bush and President Ahmadinejad to the podium. For the larger audience in the world community, however, one of the most important questions of the day remains whether the verbal blows traded between these two pugnacious leaders will turn in the fullness of time into bullets and bombs. And the sense of the best-informed was clear: yes.

I spoke with a number of European diplomats who are keeping track of the issue, and I found a near uniform analysis. These diplomats believe that the United States will launch an air war on Iran, and that it will occur within the next six to eight months. I am therefore moving the hands of the Next War clock another minute closer to midnight and putting the likelihood of conflict at 70%. It’s still not certain, and it’s still avertable, but at this point it has to be seen as conventional wisdom to say that America is headed for another war in the Islamic world—it’s fourth since Bush became president, if we include the proxy war in Lebanon. And this time it will be a war against a nation with vastly greater military resources, as well as a demonstrated ability to wield terrorism as a tactic—Iran.

Let’s take quick stock of the further indicators from the last week or so.

Shifting Targets
On Sunday, Sy Hersh’s latest piece appeared, offering a good take on the Bush Administration’s changing plans for a war on Iran. The headline from the Hersh piece, called “Shifting Targets,” makes clear that the Pentagon has been tasked to redraft its plans for a war against Iran. The new plans are very close to what was reported in the London quality press a few weeks ago: an aerial war with a somewhat narrower focus on specific units of the elite Republican Guard. Hersh’s piece is full of color, and after reading it I immediately understood why the European diplomats were so convinced that the decision to bomb Iran was all-but-final. Here’s a key passage reflecting a series of discussions which give some flavor of the war spirit in the White House:

the President told [Crocker] that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

As we have noted before, the final order to proceed to hostilities has not issued. In all likelihood this would only happen in the immediate couple of days before bombing. However, the pace of preparations is quickening and the focus is becoming more and more apparent:

there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)

“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”

Hersh also finds a White House busily engaged in identifying the best casus belli: what precipitating event will best serve the Administration’s war effort? It’s been reported for some time that the White House has slowly reached a realization that the approach taken in the lead-up to the Iraq War will not work again. A National Intelligence Estimate dealing with the Iranian nuclear program has been all-but-final for some time; it has been held up. It would be reasonable conjecture at this point to say that it does not serve the interests of the war party. The alternative approach is simple: it is to say that Iranian weaponry and Iranian-trained terrorists are battling American soldiers in Iraq today. The death of some Americans in an attack involving a bomb linked to the Iranians could easily be taken as a pretext for war with Iran.

The testimony provided by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker seems to have been laying further foundation for this effort. The same can be said for the resolution proposed by Senators Lieberman and Kyle which was a thinly veiled effort to authorize the use of military force against Iran. The Democratic leadership succeeded in watering down this measure to eliminate its use as legal authority for a new war against Iran.

A major question is whether Europeans will join America in a war against Iran? Comments from the Élysée Palace have suggested both that France expects the war, and that France is moving towards a position that is far more supportive of the Americans. That’s still far from a promise that French bombers would join the Americans. The graver speculation now focuses on Britain, and indeed, some Bush Administration insiders are claiming that British forces will join in the effort, notwithstanding Gordon Brown’s efforts to put some distance between himself and Bush on security issues. Hersh reports that the situation between the U.S. and U.K. remains testy, and he cites a very revealing incident:

Another recent incident, in Afghanistan, reflects the tension over intelligence. In July, the London Telegraph reported that what appeared to be an SA-7 shoulder-launched missile was fired at an American C-130 Hercules aircraft. The missile missed its mark. Months earlier, British commandos had intercepted a few truckloads of weapons, including one containing a working SA-7 missile, coming across the Iranian border. But there was no way of determining whether the missile fired at the C-130 had come from Iran—especially since SA-7s are available through black-market arms dealers.

Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.

The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”

Of course that describes the attitude of most Americans as well these days.

“I Hate All Iranians”
Two key Bush Administration figures are busy grabbing headlines in Britain this weekend. London’s Mail on Sunday reports:

British MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America’s stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush’s senior women officials: “I hate all Iranians.” And she also accused Britain of “dismantling” the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon. The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

And the Guardian reports on remarks delivered by John Bolton, Bush’s former ambassador to the United Nations, at a group meeting held in connection with the Tory conference:

“I don’t think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don’t know what the alternative is. Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities.”

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the “source of the problem”, Mr Ahmadinejad. “If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change … The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.”

The fact that intelligence about Iran’s nuclear activity was partial should not be used as an excuse not to act, Mr Bolton insisted. “Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction.” He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. “‘It’s only Manchester?’ … Responding after they’re used is unacceptable.”

This all reflects just the sort of mature and sober analysis that Britons have come to expect from the key advisors of President Bush in the course of the last few years.

NPod Strikes
In the last week The Politico reported that Norman Podhoretz, a titan of the Neoconservative movement, had a secret, off-the-schedule meeting that he had with President Bush and Karl Rove at which he decried the ridiculousness of diplomatic negotiations with Iran. The idea of diplomatic talks with Iran, he said, brought Rove and Bush to laughter.

And today, Podhoretz announces that he thinks the decision has been made in concept to bomb Iran before Bush and Cheney exit Washington. In a CSPAN interview, Podhoretz states:

I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office. Because he has several times said — at least twice to my knowledge — that if we allow Iranians to acquire nuclear capabilities, 50 years from now, people will look back at us the way we look back at Munich and say ‘how could they have let this happen?’

Freedom Watch Gets New Marching Orders
Millions of right-wing dollars have been pumped into a mysterious new overnight wonder organization called Freedom Watch. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher plays a key role running it, though when interviewed he didn’t even seem to know who the people in its very slick advertising were. But today we learn that Freedom Watch’s propaganda volleys are being retargeted. Previously they were concentrated to support the Bush Administration’s arguments for an extension of the Surge in Iraq. Now, it seems they’ll be advocating the Next War. The New York Times reports:

Although the group declined to identify the experts, several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House. Some institute scholars have advocated a more confrontational policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including keeping military action as an option. […]

“If Hitler’s warnings were heeded when he wrote ‘Mein Kampf,’ he could have been stopped,” said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom’s Watch and a former deputy assistant to Mr. Bush. “Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region — he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel.”

The New Rollout
Back at the end of August, Barney Rubin told us of word he got from a source suggesting that a week after Labor Day, the office of Vice President Cheney would be pushing a new product roll-out. It would involve the usual suspects and it would be a test-marketing of an air war against Iran. We’re two weeks and a bit into that process. If you go back and sift through your newspapers, you’ll find that Rubin’s unnamed source clearly knew exactly what he was talking about. Indeed, what I’ve summarized here is the tiniest fragment of the total rollout effort (I didn’t even mention the ADL’s program, and they actually even called it a “rollout”). Not only is it underway, Cheney’s role as the coordinator has become increasingly transparent. As psy ops projects go, this one isn’t terribly sophisticated. But no matter: the American media is just as easily suckered by this project as it was the last time. Just look at how the war party spun the broadcast media during the Ahmadinejad visit last week. The old adage is “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” America is well into the process of being fooled twice.
Title: Don't look for Bush at Iran university anytime soon !!
Post by: bigron on October 03, 2007, 06:31:19 am
Don't look for Bush at Iran university anytime soon Tue Oct 2, 1:39 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/od_nm/iran_bush_odd_dc_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/od_nm/iran_bush_odd_dc_1)
 


President George W. Bush is not taking seriously an invitation to visit a university in Iran, unlike his Iranian counterpart, who drew a torrent of criticism last week with a speech at Columbia University in New York.

Bush might have considered the invitation from Ferdowsi University in Mashhad if Iran was a democracy and did not seek the destruction of Israel, the White House said on Tuesday.

"Obviously if Iran was a free and democratic society that allowed its people freedom of expression and wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons and wasn't advocating to destroy the country of Israel, the president might consider that invitation," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "But I think that we're not taking it too seriously."

Bush has spoken previously at universities abroad, including in Turkey, Poland and China.

The university in northeastern Iran invited Bush to visit and discuss issues including terrorism and the Holocaust.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University last week was met by protests and Iranian politicians were angered at his treatment.

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, in his introduction, called Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator" and said his Holocaust denials suggested he was either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: Dig on October 03, 2007, 06:41:39 am
And if Iranian agents can't pull off an attack inside the US, the Bush regime will just do a false-flag attack and blame it on them. The attack on Iran is all that is needed to set events in motion leading to martial law. Here's the scenario: Attack Iran Stage a "terrorist attack" in the US and blame it on Iranians, using it as an excuse for declaring martial law Declare martial law to stop protests, stop an annoying congress, and take full control Call off the 2008 elections saying that a nation under attack needs stability in leadership Have a big party at Bohemian Grove celebrating the death of America

I think there might be an alternative plan.  It is almost as if Cheney is just going to go in without a false flag.  It will add more credibility to the planned historical discourse that we were the instigators of WWIII.  I mean 85% of the congress already voted for it.

I think Rothschild/Beatrice/Rockefeller dictated that we need to go in unprovoked, without even a false flag attack.

Look at the media reports, they are a punctuation mark away from turning "Iran War?" to "IRAN WAR!"
Title: Iran says US too tied up to fight
Post by: Godfather77 on October 03, 2007, 02:47:34 pm
As reported on the BBC news service today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7026754.stm
Quote
Washington's military commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan would hamstring an attempt to wage war on Iran, the Iranian foreign minister has said. "Our analysis is clear: [the] US is not in a position to impose another war in our region, against their taxpayers," Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters.

He warned Washington against making such a "mad decision".

Iran rejects accusations that it is seeking to build atomic weapons under the cover of a nuclear power programme. Despite its conviction that the US would find launching another military assault extremely taxing, Iran was making preparations for such an attack, Mr Mottaki said on the fringes of a UN General Assembly session in New York. He said information had been received which gave specific details of planned strikes.

The US says it is pursuing a diplomatic resolution but has refused to rule out a strike against Iran.

The fact that Israel has come clean about strikes on Syria and Iran has already made this kind of statement previously makes me wonder whether strikes on Iran will come sooner rather than later  :-\

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: jbrid1138 on October 03, 2007, 03:34:30 pm
I have it on good authority that when it comes to IRAN (and WMD) the Administration has gone to the rule books that explain these complicated matters, but no reason for concern because all is under control -- they have decided to apply the --
THE KNOWN KNOWNS OF DONALD RUMSFELD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efrpWdh9qi0&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dan on October 03, 2007, 09:42:18 pm
ah yes...

THE KNOWN KNOWNS....AND THE UNKNOWN KNOWNS.

Oh yeah,

THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS, AND THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS.

But wait,

THERE IS THE KNOWN UNKNOWN KNOWNS, AND THE UNKNOWN KNOWN UNKNOWNS

And then there is the

KNOWN KNOWN UNKNOWNS, AND THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWN KNOWNS

WHAT!!!!!!!
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: clint on October 04, 2007, 11:58:50 am
Quote
THE KNOWN KNOWNS....AND THE UNKNOWN KNOWNS.

Oh yeah,

THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS, AND THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS.

But wait,

THERE IS THE KNOWN UNKNOWN KNOWNS, AND THE UNKNOWN KNOWN UNKNOWNS

And then there is the

KNOWN KNOWN UNKNOWNS, AND THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWN KNOWNS

Sounds like a great bushism. Rummy beat him to it.
Title: Israel 'blinded' Syrian radar/Syrian parliament: ‘Israel operation failed'
Post by: Dig on October 04, 2007, 10:02:40 pm
Report: Israel 'blinded' Syrian radar
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3456456,00.html
Ynet Published:    10.05.07, 01:15 / Israel News


After Israeli missile strike on Syria confirmed by both sides, the question remains – how did Israel's non-stealth jets infiltrate Syrian airspace undetected? US aerospace experts tell Aviation Week magazine that Israel used new US-developed technology that lets users invade and manipulate enemy communication networks. After Syrian President Bashar Assad admitted that Israeli planes carried out a missile strike in Syria and after the media blackout on the incident was lifted in Israel, many unanswered questions still remain regarding how IAF jets managed to infiltrate Syrian security.

(http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20022007/1105487/DAM103_a.jpg)
Syrian parliament member says ‘Israel operation failed’ / Roee Nahmias

In special interview with Israeli-Arab newspaper Mohammad Habash calls IAF raid on Syria ‘failure’, says Israel must change policy, negotiate peace. US aerospace industry and former US Air Force officials told Aviation Week's Senior Military Editor David A. Fulghum that Israel must have used "a technology like the US-developed 'Suter' airborne network attack system". The cutting-edge technology allows users to invade enemy communication networks, to "see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can't be seen", experts said. In effect, the technology infiltrates and tricks enemy sensors by "directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control," the article explains.   The US system was recently tested successfully in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, officials told Aviation Week. Iran worried?

According to the article, a Kuwaiti newspaper recently reported that "Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions."  The system is the new Tor-M1 launcher, and the Iranians bought 29 of them from Russia for $750 million to guard their nuclear sites. The Tor launchers were delivered in January, according to Agency France-Press and ITAR-TASS. It is not confirmed that the Tor system was in fact the system guarding the Syrian site.
Title: Dr. Ron Paul is the only Representative protecting USA from instigating WWIII
Post by: Dig on October 04, 2007, 11:41:52 pm
Congress condemns Iran. Again.

The House of Representatives passed a bill this week condemning the persecution of labor rights activists in Iran. Below is the meat of the bill (full text here):
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Iranian regime for the arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and demands their immediate release;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of Iran and stands with them, and with all Iranians, in their efforts to bring political freedom and individual liberty to Iran; and
(3) calls on the Iranian regime to respect the right of Iranian workers to form independent associations and unions, as required by its membership in the ILO.

The bill passed by an overwhelming 418-1 majority, and if you've been following politics, you can probably guess who cast the lone dissenting vote. Yes, Ron Paul was the only Representative to vote against today's bill condemning Iran. Dennis Kucinich sat this one out. The bill now goes to the Senate, where we will find out whether Hillary and Obama will follow Paul's example or continue to play it safe.

This follows last week's resolution passed by the Senate condemning Iran and calling for the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard to be officially labeled as foreign a terrorist group (potentially granting authorization for an attack).

A lot of taxpayer dollars are being wasted these days on resolutions that are nonbinding and have no clear purpose other than to antagonize Iran. Why? It's not that I don't support labor rights activists. But let's be honest, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with labor rights. No one in Congress legitimately believes that passing a nonbinding resolution will have any positive effect whatsoever within Iran.

Someone wants you to hear about Iran, particularly anything negative, everyday. Between 2001 and 2003, Saddam Hussein morphed from a forgotten relic of the past to a perceived legitimate threat, simply because the administration beat the drums of war loudly and frequently until the public fell in step.

The same is happening now with Iran. And again, Congressional Democrats don't have the guts to stand up and stop the momentum from building.

1-418!
Just say NO to WWIII
Elect Dr. Ron Paul
Title: "WE DON'T SPEAK TO EVIL"....The nation is Iran. And the reaction is ridiculous
Post by: bigron on October 05, 2007, 06:12:20 am
"WE DON'T SPEAK TO EVIL"Wed Oct 3, 6:28 PM ET
 

The nation is Iran. And the reaction is ridiculous.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20071003/cm_ucru/quotwedontspeaktoevilquot (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20071003/cm_ucru/quotwedontspeaktoevilquot)

 

"The Evil Has Landed," shrieked the headline of the New York Daily News on the occasion of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speeches at the United Nations and Columbia University. A "madman," Rupert Murdoch's New York Post spat, setting the tone for a week of Bizarro News. On "60 Minutes," the Iranian president said there was no reason his country and ours couldn't be friends--even the best of friends.

"La la la la--we can't hear you" was the response.

"Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?" CBS News' Scott Pelley asked Ahmadinejad.

He replied: "You have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?"

Pelley followed up: "May I take that as a 'no,' sir?"

Ahmadinejad: "It is a firm 'no.'"

Some Americans would pay good money to hear an answer as honest and straightforward as that from their leaders. Yet, minutes later, Pelley kept badgering: "When I ask you a question as direct as 'Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?' you dance all around the question. You never say 'yes.' You never say 'no.'"

Weird. Is Pelley hard of hearing? But what I really can't figure out is how Iran qualifies as our--Very Big Word coming--"enemy." We're not at war with Iran. Neither are our allies. What gives?

Capitalizing on the reliable ignorance of the American public and the indolent gullibility of its journalists, the Bush Administration regularly conflates its numerous targets of regime change, pretending they love each other to death and are united only in their desire to slaughter innocent American children. There are gaping chasms in this narrative, but they vanish into our national memory hole.

After the 9/11 attacks turned the U.S. against the Taliban, U.S. media outlets put footage of a handful of jeering Palestinians on heavy rotation. Meanwhile, "In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."

Wondering why you never heard that? The above quote comes from the BBC. Fox News didn't report. American news consumers didn't know, much less decide.

Finding an opportunity for rapprochement and a mutual foe in the Taliban, Iran became a silent America ally after 9/11. The Iranian military offered to conduct search and rescue operations for downed U.S. pilots during the fall 2001 war against the Taliban. It used its influence with the Afghanistan's Dari population to broker the loya jirga that installed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan.

Everyone expected U.S.-Iranian relations to thaw. There was even talk about ending sanctions and exchanging ambassadors. A few weeks later, however, White House neocons had Iran named as a member of an "Axis of Evil" in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. "We were all shocked by the fact that the U.S. had such a short memory and was so ungrateful about what had happened just a month ago," remembers Javad Zarif, now the Iranian ambassador to the U.N.

Bush accused Shiite-majority Iran, a mortal enemy of Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda, of offering sanctuary to Al Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan. "Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror," Bush railed. "Either you're with us or against us." The allegation was BS. No one--not the CIA, not one of our allies, no one--believed that Iran would harbor, or had harbored, members of Al Qaeda. "I wasn't aware of any intelligence supporting that charge," says James Dobbins, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan. But we never took it back.

In May 2003, Iran shook off its annoyance and again tried to make nice. The Iranian overture came in the form of a letter delivered to the State Department after the fall of Baghdad. "Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table--including being completely open about its nuclear program, helping to stabilize Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah," reported the BBC.

U.S. officials confirm this overture.

"That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues," says Seyed Adeli, an Iranian foreign minister at the time. Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the Bushies made a conscious decision to ignore it. "We don't speak to evil," he recalls that Administration hardliners led by Donald Rumsfeld said.

In the minds of the hard right, the case for Iran's evilness rests on three issues: the 1979 hostage crisis, its opposition to Israel, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Readers of Mark Bowden's "Guests of the Ayatollah" can't help but sympathize with the American embassy staffers who spent 444 days in captivity from late 1979 to early 1981. But the right-wingers' real beef over this episode concerns our wounded national pride.

What they fail to mention is that President Carter brought the mess upon himself, first by continuing to prop up the corrupt and brutal regime of Reza Shah Pahlavi long after it was obviously doomed, and then by admitting him to the U.S. for cancer treatment. Carter knew that his decision to coddle a toppled tyrant could stir up trouble.

"He went around the room," said then-Vice President Walter Mondale," and most of us said, 'Let him [the Shah] in. And he said, 'And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?' And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did."

Iran finances and arms Hezbollah, the paramilitary group-cum-nascent state based in Lebanon that wages sporadic attacks against Israel. If proxy warfare and funding Islamist terror organizations that despise Israel were a consideration, however, the U.S. would cut off relations with and impose sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Can we stop talking to ourselves? We supported the Afghan mujahedeen.) It is possible to maintain friendly relations with nations that hate one another, and we do.

There are two points missing from most discussions of Iran's nuclear energy program and whether it's a cover for a weapons program. First, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. Leaders of the Islamic Republic inherited the NPT from the Shah. The revolutionaries voluntarily chose to honor the agreement after they threw him out.

Second, the U.S. practices a double standard by threatening war against Iran while ignoring Israel's refusal to obey a U.N. resolution calling for a nuclear-free Middle East passed in 1996. As of the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence agencies believed Israel to possess between 75 and 130 nukes. Iran has zero. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there's even less evidence against Iran than there was against Saddam's Iraq.

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the government of Iran. They're just a regional rival in the Middle East--another frenemy.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 05, 2007, 06:47:13 am




CONSTITUTION

War With Iran? Who Decides?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5787 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5787)

Anyone following the growing political debate about whether or not we should go to war against Iran knows that both pundits and politicians assume that the decision is the president’s to make.

But though this perception is fairly widespread, it not universal. In fact, a contrary point of view is occasionally aired by the mainstream media. Such was the case with the Fox News GOP presidential candidate debate in Durham, New Hampshire, on September 5. During the debate, moderator Brit Hume presented Congressman Ron Paul with a scenario that the next president may face regarding Iran. As described by Hume: “Its [Iran’s] nuclear program has continued to advance. UN weapons inspectors … are now saying that it appears that Iran is on the verge of being able to produce and may even be producing nuclear weapons…. Cross-border incidents in Iraq involving elements of the Revolutionary Guard … continue to increase and are a continuing problem for U.S. forces there. In addition, the threats by Iran’s leader against Israel have become more pronounced and more extreme.” Hume then asked Paul: “What do you do?”

Congressman Paul began his answer by pointing out: “For one thing, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn’t have the authority to go to war — he goes to the Congress.”

But Brit Hume appeared a bit puzzled with Paul’s point that the president does not have the authority to go to war. “What do you do?” he asked the congressman. “So what do you do?” he repeated. Paul answered: “He goes to the Congress and finds out if there’s any threat to our national security.”

Under our system of government, Paul is correct. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly states: “The Congress shall have power … to declare war.” This means, of course, that the president does not possess this power. But how many of our fellow citizens know this? And how many know why the Founding Fathers assigned this power to Congress and not the president?

Undoubtedly, many of our fellow citizens, including perhaps Brit Hume, do erroneously believe that the decision to go to war is the president’s to make. Many Americans, after all, have been misled by media reports that focus on whether the president will take the nation into another war, as opposed to whether the Congress will declare war. And of course, many have been misled by the fact that after World War II U.S. presidents have acted as if the decision to go to war is theirs to make, with Congress allowing this usurpation to take place.

George W. Bush is no exception. In March of 2003, he launched an offensive war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. The previous fall, Congress had passed a resolution that essentially authorized the president to make the decision, thereby shirking its own responsibility under the Constitution. When the president launched the invasion of Iraq the following spring, he said he was doing so to enforce UN resolutions requiring Iraq to get rid of its reputed weapons of mass destruction. But he did not cite any congressional requirement to justify his action because there was none.

Bush has even explicitly claimed that he decides when America goes to war. For instance, in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, less than two months before launching the war against Iraq, he claimed: “Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make.” On December 18, 2005, in an address to the nation on Iraq, he said: “As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.”

Obviously, much of the responsibility for going into Iraq does belong to the president. After all, he made the decision. But some of the responsibility for our Iraq debacle also falls on Congress for ignoring its congressional responsibility and bowing to presidential usurpation. But that aside, there is no question that the president not only does not possess the authority to go to war but should not possess that authority.

When the Founding Fathers formed our constitutional republic, they recognized the inherent danger in giving a single person — the president or anyone else — the awesome power to make war. As James Madison, the father of our Constitution, put it in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on April 2, 1798: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

A few years earlier, when the great question of whether or not to ratify the Constitution was being debated, Alexander Hamilton stressed in The Federalist Papers, No. 69, that the president’s powers would be limited: “The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral … while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

In the following century, Abraham Lincoln recalled the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in a letter dated February 15, 1848: “Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [1787] Convention [which drafted the Constitution] understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.”

Up to and including World War II, the Congress did declare our wars and the president acted on that authority. Beginning with the Korean War, however, our wars have not been declared. And a constitutional principle that was once widely understood has now been largely forgotten.

Of course, there are those who at least acknowledge that the power to declare war is in the Constitution, but who claim that this power is not the same as the power to make war. They overlook a very important fact that was pointed out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in its February 9, 1972 Report on War Powers: “The Constitutional Convention at first proposed to give Congress the power to ‘make’ war but changed this to ‘declare’ war, not, however, because it was desired to enlarge Presidential power but in order to permit the President to take action to repel sudden attacks.” Put simply, the congressional power to declare war is tantamount to the power to make war, and the Founders opted for the word “declare” to allow the president to respond immediately to sudden attacks without violating the Constitution.

There are also those who dismiss the congressional power to declare war by claiming that it is anachronistic. But how they’re able to make such a claim defies reason. Has human nature changed since the 18th century when the Constitution was drafted? Was it folly then to entrust a president with the powers of a king, but wise to do so now?

Anyone who sincerely believes this should take a look at the consequences of the presidential usurpation of power, particularly the power to send the nation to war — and should also consider how much worse the consequences could become if the usurpations are allowed to continue.

Which brings us to the looming specter of war with Iran. Is it wisdom or folly to allow President Bush to make this decision? Hasn’t the Iraq debacle — from the false intelligence regarding WMDs, to use of American troops to quell what has become a civil war — shown that President Bush must not be allowed to make any such decision?

But neither should any other president! Any decision regarding going to war — against Iran, or against any other country — must be made by Congress. But even with Congress making the decision, there is no justification whatsoever for launching a so-called pre-emptive war against any country that has not attacked us. We must never go to war except in defense of our country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:
http://thenewamerican.com/node/5787
Title: Newest Neocon Brainstorm: Iran won't retailiate if we bomb them
Post by: xvyxx on October 07, 2007, 07:48:26 am
Just happened to catch this on MSNBC this morning.

Typical Sunday morning 'news' show.  Host had a neocon Colonel on talking about the need to bomb Iran 'to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq'.

He stated that 'there is one line of reasoning that Iran won't retailiate if we bomb them'.

If these are the minds that are running our country we're certainly doomed.
Title: Re: Newest Neocon Brainstorm: Iran won't retailiate if we bomb them
Post by: xvyxx on October 07, 2007, 07:53:15 am
And now this:


"The biggest danger, some U.S. officials believe, is that the Iranians don't take U.S. power seriously."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501896.html
Title: General "Betray Us" is still a traitor to the American People, hypes WWIII
Post by: Dig on October 07, 2007, 11:15:54 am
Petraeus: Iran still fueling war
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html
CNN 10/7/2007

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:E6I-b2Ry4eWrWM:http://www.globalpeacesolution.org/Portals/5/nuclear%2520explosion.JPG)
FORWARD OPERATING BASE CALDWELL, Iraq (CNN) -- Although America's top general in Iraq called al Qaeda "the wolf closest to the sled," he said sectarian fighting among militias fueled by Iran could be the biggest long-term challenge for Iraq. Petraeus says Iran must prove it is no longer supplying weapons to Iraq militias. Gen. David Petraeus, in an interview with CNN's Jim Clancy near the Iranian border in Diyala province, said, "Militias could potentially be the long-term problem for Iraq, if you assume that we can continue to make progress against al Qaeda," Petraeus said.  He said he is in a "show-me mode," waiting to see if Iran honors a pledge to stop the flow of arms, money and training from Iran into Iraq that has helped both Shiite and Sunni militants. "Al Qaeda remains the wolf closest to the sled, if you will. The enemy that is always bent on reigniting sectarian violence, causing the most horrific casualties, damaging the infrastructure in the most difficult way. So you cannot lose focus on al Qaeda." But, Petraeus added, there was "no question" that Iranian arms were ending up in the hands of the Iraqi militias and there was "no debate" that six Iranians detained by the U.S. military in northern Iraq are Iranian Quds force members, the Iranian unit accused by the United States of training and arming insurgents. "There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said.

"It has provided some shoulder-fired, Stinger-like air-defense missiles. It has provided the explosively formed projectiles and it has provided 244 mm rockets, in addition to mortars, mortar rounds and other small-arms ammunition." Petraeus also said the Iranians "are implicated in the assassination of some governors in the southern provinces." He said one indication the Quds force controls Iranian policy is that Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazzem Qomi, is a member of the the group. Qomi, who has diplomatic immunity, could not immediately be reached for a reaction. Gen. Petraeus said the Iranian ambassador has given his Iraqi counterpart assurances Iran would stop the supplying and training of insurgents. "They had two sessions," he said. "Numerous Iraqi leaders have gone to Tehran and asked that they stop very, very directly, stop the lethal assistance. There have been sub-ambassadorial meetings as well. And there have been assurances in return actually from Iran to Iraqi leaders and we are waiting to see if those assurances bear fruit or not frankly. We are very much in the show-me mode right now. We would love to see that." Petraeus reiterated that Iranians detained by the United State recently in northern Iraq are Quds Force members. One of them was arrested recently in Sulaimaniya and five others were arrested in Irbil. The U.S. military has intercepted caches of explosively formed projectiles -- a more sophisticated and powerful type of roadside bomb -- and other weapons from Iran in recent months, but Petraeus said stopping the regular flow of arms to the militias is a challenge.
Title: Petraeus: 'Show me' if Iran has stopped supplying Iraqi insurgents
Post by: DCUBED on October 07, 2007, 05:24:45 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html?eref=yahoo

"There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said.

My question is, where are the 200,000 weapons that the Pentagon reported missing in early August?  Which included RPG's.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons/index.html

"Auditors were unable to determine whether the weapons -- which included heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers -- were stolen, being used by insurgents or still in the hands of Iraqi units."

So.....Who exactly is providing Iraq with weapons?
Title: Attack on Iran, morality lost in the garden of deceits
Post by: Biggs on October 07, 2007, 06:11:39 pm


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18513.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18513.htm)

Attack on Iran: Morality Lost in the Garden of Deceits

By Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

10/06/07 "ICH"
-- --- Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war (Julius Caesar Act III, Scene I). The call for war against Iran was issued by no other than Mr. Bernard Kouchner the foreign minister of France, a country with the motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. France the home of Voltaire and Rousseau is now calling for war against a country that has never threatened France or its neighbours. France a nuclear power with illustrious colonial past is urging others to be aware of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose.

From the other side of the Atlantic we hear the same cries for more war, death and destruction. As though the death of 650000 Iraqis was not enough, we are urged to prepare ourselves for another war. We are told that by killing more civilians, creating more refugees, destroying more bridges, power plants, schools, hospitals and factories we are going to be safer and live better lives.

Recently Mr. Greenspan told us what we already knew: namely that Iraq was invaded because of its oil. This of course was not the first time that we heard this and it certainly will not be the last either. But who cares? Here we see President Bush and his allies illegally attacking and destroying a country, making millions homeless and starting a civil war without a slightest sign of remorse. They went to steal the natural resources of Iraq and they did it and are doing it. And now they want more. Yesterday it was Iraq; tomorrow it will be Iran and the day after it will be Venezuela. When the president of the world’s only superpower acts like a thief, what protection is there for the rest of the world? The very same people that brought us the Iraq tragedy are using the same excuses to repeat their misdeeds again.

In late August, “Iran and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency released a plan laying out a step-by-step timetable of cooperation with the goal of resolving by December issues that have been under investigation for four years. Agency officials have praised the timetable as a breakthrough and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Tuesday said the investigation into his country’s nuclear activities was now closed.”

This agreement was hailed as a success by the IAEA and UN. The problem with this agreement is that it takes away the excuse needed by Bush and Co to implement their strategy of strangling Iran and get their hands on Iran’s oil and gas. Naturally, just like the case in Iraq, they have dismissed the agreement saying that it was not enough. Then the talk of war intensified, with US, Israel and then France talking loudly about an eventual attack on Iran. The main aim of these shrill voices is to take the people’s attention away from the IAEA-Iran agreement and back to some illogical talk of Iran’s threat to the world.

It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will eventually come to believe you. Having used this tactics in Iraq with some success, they believe they can do it again. They believe that people will eventually come to believe that Iran is a serious threat to the world and grudgingly accept another war. And the good thing about this is, so they believe, that this time they don’t even have to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by Iran. They just have to say that they have prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the “future”. Very logical, isn’t it?

The fact that these same countries posses lots of nuclear weapons is irrelevant, so we are told. We are to believe that Israel, Pakistan, India, US, UK, France, China and Russia are all exception to the rules. Other countries that enrich Uranium are also exceptions. It is only Iran with its vast natural resources that is a danger to the world peace and prosperity.

Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and last year was involved in one of the most savage attacks on Lebanon. She also recently bombed Syria. Yet we hear no protest from the so called “civilized world”. Pakistan, a dictatorship, with its tremendous security problems (Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc) has nuclear weapons and is awarded F16s. India tested nuclear weapons and was awarded trade and nuclear technology transfer agreements.

What is the moral lesson from all this? There is none; the law of the jungle rules. Those who can steal will steal. Those who can rape will do so with impunity. There is no punishment for the strong; it is the weak that has to pay. Meanwhile we pretend to believe all their lies and keep hoping for cheaper oil and higher share prices; otherwise we have to face our own complicity in their crimes. After all who elected them and who re-elected them? Our very silence makes us an accomplice.

As you read this you should think about all those Iraqis that have been killed, the 2.5 million Iraqis that had to flee the carnage in their country and a similar number of internal Iraqi refugees. You should think about all the lies that you have been told and ask yourself these questions: do I want another incident like Iraq? Can I stay silent and accept more killings and destruction? Is it OK for the powerful to commit armed robbery?

If one finds it difficult to answer these questions, then perhaps one should follow what Bertrand Russell said: “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side: one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach”.

Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a management consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He can be contacted by e-mail at:Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on October 07, 2007, 11:04:48 pm
War with Iran is inevitable

Colbert Report:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5123
Title: Getting Israel ready for war....
Post by: berean on October 07, 2007, 11:24:20 pm
Haven't heard about this in the MSM, but according to Debka, Congress has approved a massive arms package deal for Israel. (Notice that the headline says the deal is U.S. funded). Interesting timing....

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4641 (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4641)


Congress approves $1.2 billion worth of US-funded Israeli arms purchases, including 50 huge GBU-28 guided bunker busters

October 4, 2007, 10:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
American GBU-28 guided bunker buster sold to Israel

DEBKAfile’s military sources report the package, discussed by US Pentagon and Israel defense ministry officials, aims at replenishing the seriously depleted Israel Air Force stocks of missiles, bombs and fuel to their level prior to the 2006 Lebanon war, ready for any potential war contingency. Some of these items will be delivered shortly; others over a five-year period.

They include thousands of missiles, tens of thousands of new bombs worth $799 million and 132 million gallons of jet fuel worth $308 million.

The accent of this consignment will be on the heaviest American bombs designed for such subterranean targets as the bunker fortresses of Iran, Syria and Lebanon’s Hizballah and on operating and guidance systems for upgrading Israeli Air Force ammunition.

The list, according to US defense sources, also includes 10,000 JDAM tail kits for high precision guidance of bombs in all weathers at ranges of up to 25 km, which are designed for use with the GBU-29-32 bunker busters; 4,000 laser-guided Paveway II munitions kits; more than 11,000 Mk-84 and Mk-82 bombs; 2,000 heavy fortifications-penetrating BLU-109 bombs; and 50 GBU-28 5,000-pound guided bunker busters.

The Israeli Air Force will also receive 500 Sidewinders AIM-9M, and 200 AIM-120C (AMRAAM) medium range air-to-air missiles.

The American DefenseNews.com quotes Israeli industry executives, including the state-owned Rafael Armament Development Authority, Israel Aerospace Industries and Military Industries, as concerned by the country’s increasing dependence on American weaponry. While appreciative of American generosity, they complain that locally made, alternative products are often more capable than US systems and better adjusted to Israeli needs. They took particular exception to the defense ministry’s plans to stock up on US Sidewinders and AMRAAM missile when the Python-5, Derby and follow-on indigenous systems are specifically designed for the Israeli Air force.

This massive purchasing program, say Israeli industry sources, not only denies their firms billions of shekels in new orders, but threatens to erode their international sales of such items as Israeli-built air-to-air missiles, which have made their mark on world markets.
Title: Re: Getting Israel ready for war....
Post by: Dig on October 07, 2007, 11:36:58 pm
Cheney is funding everyone...

Syria

Iran

Suadi Arabia

Jordan

Pakistan

Turkey

Libya

Jordan

Cheney has the "box seats" for the planned WWIII, right in the center of Dubai (also where Halliburton is)
Title: Re: Newest Neocon Brainstorm: Iran won't retailiate if we bomb them
Post by: NotASheep on October 08, 2007, 01:27:28 am


... 'there is one line of reasoning that Iran won't retaliate if we bomb them'.


I feel like  I am going to throw up....

Freakin' madmen.

I'm locked into the Titanic and the Captain is a psychopath steering straight towards the iceberg!
Title: Gordon Brown is Nixon Reincarnated
Post by: Dig on October 08, 2007, 10:10:09 am
On lve C-SPAN

www.c-span.org

Gordon Brown fails to accept any responsibility for the Iraq War and says we must continue to build a democracy there.  Brown says that the Iraqis are now taking over security due to the incredibly great work the oalition forces have dne.  He s also inspired by the opportunity to turn Iran into Cambodia.

He is using Nixon's playbook page by page.

BS the people with anti-war rhetoric, then after elected prod the escalation of the war.

Oh and he also quoted Greenspan to forward his treasonous actions.

What a wanker!
Title: Re: Gordon Brown is Nixon Reincarnated
Post by: Dig on October 08, 2007, 10:51:54 am
Brown Announces Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, Says Troop Reductions Have Made Basra ‘Calmer’ »
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/gordon-brown-withdrawal/
In a speech to the British Parliament this morning, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he will cut troop levels in Iraq to 2,500 in early 2008, trimming the force by nearly half. “Britain has around 5,000 troops based mainly at an air base camp on the fringe of the southern city of Basra.”

Brown explained that since British forces “handed over our base in Basra City in early September, the present security situation has been calmer.” As evidence, he noted, “In the last month, there have been five indirect fire attacks on Basra Air Station compared with 87 in July.”

Indeed, Reuters reported last week, “Residents of Iraq’s southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.”

Given the success of the withdrawal to date, Brown announced that the British would proceed with the second phase of redeployment:

The next important stage in delivering our strategy is to hand over security to the Iraqis, and it is to move from a combat role in the rest of Basra province to overwatch, which will itself have two distinct stages.

In the first, the British forces that remain in Iraq will have the following tasks: training and mentoring the Iraqi army and police force, securing supply routes and policing the Iran-Iraq border, and the ability to come to the assistance of the Iraqi security forces when called upon.

Then in the spring of next year, and guided as always by the advice of military commanders, we plan to move to a second stage of overwatch where the coalition would maintain a more limited re- intervention capacity and where the main focus will be on training and mentoring. […]

And, subject of course to conditions on the ground, we plan from next spring to reduce force numbers in southern Iraq to a figure of 2,500.
Title: Re: Newest Neocon Brainstorm: Iran won't retailiate if we bomb them
Post by: agentbluescreen on October 08, 2007, 11:56:55 am
I'm locked into the Titanic and the Captain is a psychopath steering straight towards the iceberg!

Indeed, as the pirate Captain of our ship of state stays his course upon a target clearly destined to even increase further the "false scarcity" of oil supplies for a hungry world, we should reflect upon the 1979 Energy Crisis that caused the price of gold to hit it's false and temporary record high spike on the London Gold Market the following January of 1980.

Clearly these Global Mercantile Cabals are planning for and orchestrating Global Depression 2.0 and in this strategy counting upon a Trifecta which will allow them, once again to suck vast profit takings out of their currency, oil and gold commodity values. With their control of the former and their vast holdings of both the latter, still abundant commodities at record high levels now, the market manipulative nature of the conflict policies they are purchasing is transparent.

So how would they benefit?

The last time that both Iraqi and Iranian oil production dropped, both oil and gold commodity values record-spiked and the Nixon/Ford/Pavlavi Iranian Energy Crisis ensued, dooming currencies to record inflation and the Carter Economy to recession. Now we have two immensely destructive and expensive wars still in progress in two key oil producing or transporting venues, both succoring upon the grossly depleted productive capacities of the US economy.

So their strategy is clear, dumping currency already now nearly past, they are on a 50/50 gold/oil footing. As currencies collapse they will dump gold, cashing in on it's false spike and likely converting those profits into more oil holdings. Once the ever plentiful, basically useless, recyclable and non consumable gold has flattened back to the now even more depressed 'traditional average" currency valuations it deserves, oil demand will be tailing off into decline almost as precipitously, and they can then complete the profit taking, by dumping oil at still unheard-of record highs and pose as our saviors by bringing on more supply, which they are now more in complete monopolistic control of than ever before.

Gold is already beyond record high speculative spike levels and currencies are now in free fall so the transition from phase two to phase three will begin with the dropping of first bombs on Iran.

Just a word to the wise here, politics, humanity and morality aside, that at this time gold now looks like a lot worse investment than does it's "black" counterpart...

Corollary thing here is, how do you keep oil holdings (and profits) away from being swallowed away whole by the IRS?

Do we all have to follow Cheney's example and move to Dubai?
Title: Re: Gordon Brown is Nixon Reincarnated
Post by: Godfather77 on October 08, 2007, 02:55:15 pm
I was listening to TalkSport over in the UK a few nights ago and was shocked at how ignorant some people can be.  The show that night was hosted by George Galloway and during it a lady called to say why she believed Gordon Brown would be remembered as the best PM ever (LOL).  She came across as a staunch socialist and attempted to purport that as she was a religious lady her views should be respected.  When the host asked her what her view on Iraq was she stated how sad she is for mothers and children in the mess that once was that country.  When the host then reminded her that Gordon Brown had voted in favour of the Iraq war and as Chancellor had even been in charge of arranged the funding for the war she wouldn't listen to any of it and continued rambling on to herself.  ::)

Gordon 'Bottle-it' Brown and Tony B-Liar were joined at the hip and throughout their time together it was like watching a Punch and Judy show with them continually arguing over whose 'way to do it' was best.  Listening to Gordon now trying to distance himself from polices he himself voted in favour of is nauseating.  If he thinks he can change Britain for the better in the remainder of his term as PM he will need to rectify the numerous problems his party have created since they got in power some 10 years ago. 

Title: Re: Gordon Brown is Nixon Reincarnated
Post by: Biggs on October 08, 2007, 06:03:28 pm
Gordon Brown has shown he is little more than a sick disgrace, I mean the guy seemingly is now in favour of military action against Iran. He is not a stupid person and has considerable intellect, which means he must be aware of how awful the consequences will be and yet sill he is okay with the idea, even if less vocally than that fascist dick Sarkozy.

Yet Brown is clearly trying to curry favour (and free up troops for a greater role in Afghanistan) by withdrawing troops from Iraq without actually admitting any fault in the policy, but giving a veneer of having upset the White House as he knows this perception will prove popular with people who in the Uk mostly hate George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Title: Re: Gordon Brown is Nixon Reincarnated
Post by: snowykittenz on October 08, 2007, 08:03:19 pm
I was shocked when somebody I know turned around and said

"Gordon Brown seems a decent guy. After all he is a hardcore Christian".

There is purely no evidence for this.
Infact, evidence shows otherwise.
I wonder how many times he's been to the grove?

No, unfortunetly my friends, he released a book of his memo's in which he quoted alot of Christian morals.
He says he consideres certain famous Christians as his heroes.

It seems to me, that he is using the same card as George Bush used with the church.
He is hoping that although all of his actions go against the idea, that he can get a few extra votes by pretending to follow Jesus.

Poor Jesus.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Biggs on October 09, 2007, 11:15:55 am
I agree it does look like it, but the Uk is much much less religious than the USA and he could never get away with the crap that Bush talks about religion and God's will etc etc
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: clint on October 09, 2007, 11:21:52 am
I don't like Brown. The Labour party is supposed to be all about helping the working people, but he seems indifferent to them and has just sold out the postal workers.

In a recent infowars story he is also now supporting strikes against Iran;s soldiers rather than the nuclear sites, once again sh+tting himself like he's done already this week by calling off any speculation of a general election after the conservatives went up in the polls.

Some claim he is a satanist but I doubt that.
Title: Re: Iran threatens to attack 170 U.S. Targets in Middle East & around the World
Post by: Dan on October 09, 2007, 11:25:16 am

I think there might be an alternative plan.  It is almost as if Cheney is just going to go in without a false flag.  It will add more credibility to the planned historical discourse that we were the instigators of WWIII.  I mean 85% of the congress already voted for it.

I think Rothschild/Beatrice/Rockefeller dictated that we need to go in unprovoked, without even a false flag attack.

Look at the media reports, they are a punctuation mark away from turning "Iran War?" to "IRAN WAR!"

I agree that there will probably be no US soil attack.  But my line of thinking is that they will tie all of the current events being reported together making it the only choice we have.  This is what I mean.

1.  Iran is helping to destabilize Iraq.
2.  N. Korea is selling Nuke technology to Syria.
3.  Israel threatens Syria.
4.  America threatens Iran with retaliation for attack on Israel.
5.  Iran threatens Israel with retaliation for attack on Syria.
6.  "Israel" attacks Syria.

Here we are now.  Next thing to happen will be similar to this:

1.  Israel will re attack Syria.
2.  Iran will, by cause of treaty with Syria, attack Israel.
3.  Israel will cry for help and

Drum roll please...............

4.  America gets its opening to attack Iran, by cause of our treaty with Israel.

then:

China and Russia come to Iran's aid leaving Israel and America to call for help from the EU.

Now we have Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America (NAU) all involved in the ultimate WWIII.

So easy to escalate it to a nuke war at this point.

Cheney gets his war, defense contractors get their money, and the war goes round.  Everything the Elite could want.

Dan
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Biggs on October 09, 2007, 11:25:33 am
well he is a very senior freemason, so must have engaged in some Baal and Jabuhlon worship at some stage, however,. he is not Illuminati as such and so may never have quite gotten to the full Satanism stage, more keeping things at the slightly lesser Luciferian kind of level..
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Biggs on October 09, 2007, 11:28:04 am
@Dan

it is certainly a plausible theory and about as likely as any other sequence of events, it sure does look like they want to do Syria and Iran together, at least degrade their military capabilities and then slowly strangle them both like they did Iraq.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dan on October 09, 2007, 01:02:06 pm
And I was thinking they would use the treaty approach because it would give us the "legal" backing to attack without lying to the American public.  Not that they care, but because it is too much of a headache for them to want to deal with.

Dan
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Biggs on October 09, 2007, 01:09:25 pm
yes the treaty approach does make sense, it removes the UN from the equation, all they have to do is instigate a border clash with Syrian troops in the Golan heights and hey presto they can get the ball rolling.

I once read a book - a novel - where a clash on the Golan Heights led to WWIII, hhmmmm, let us hope not.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: snowykittenz on October 09, 2007, 01:58:52 pm
Dont you find it funny that Brown keeps on offering places in his party to members of oppisite parties in the "democratic government".

He's trying to create a two way (maybe even one) vote.

If he splits the Lib Dems...theyll liquidate, and then the UK will be left with a two part government like the states.
Which is Scary because we all know that both parties are just as corrupt.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Biggs on October 09, 2007, 05:01:09 pm
a 2 party system for the Uk is indeed an awful thought, whilst the LibDems have been cowed somewhat, they are the only party to in anyway stand up for what is right and decent.

It would be one step nearer to US style fascism.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: clint on October 10, 2007, 10:48:36 am
Quote
a 2 party system for the Uk is indeed an awful thought, whilst the LibDems have been cowed somewhat, they are the only party to in anyway stand up for what is right and decent.

It would be one step nearer to US style fascism.

For all the use they are, the lib dems may as well just not be there.

Dan.

Some good points there. Surely a full scale nuclear war would want to be avoided by all - if it did happen we'd all have front row seats, even the NWO - they'd be losers too. I assume they would want a more conventional war for profit.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dan on October 10, 2007, 11:08:24 am
Quote
Dan.

Some good points there. Surely a full scale nuclear war would want to be avoided by all - if it did happen we'd all have front row seats, even the NWO - they'd be losers too. I assume they would want a more conventional war for profit.

Good point, Profit is the ultimate goal anyway right?

Or is it total world domination and depopulation of the planet?

Either way the theory stands and it still turns out bad for the rest of us.

Dan
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 17, 2007, 07:13:46 am
Neighbors Join Call Against Attack on Iran
Putin, at Tehran Talks, Cites Caspian Solidarity

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101600251_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101600251_pf.html)


MOSCOW, Oct. 16 -- Visiting Iran on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his opposition to any military attack on the country in response to its controversial nuclear program.

No Caspian Sea country should let its territory be used by other countries "for aggressive or military operations against another Caspian state," said Putin, who is attending a meeting in Tehran of the leaders of the five countries that border the inland sea.

The leaders jointly made a similar statement, signaling the opposition of Iran's neighbors to any military action by the United States or its allies.

None of the adjacent countries had indicated willingness to support such a strike. But as tensions rise over Iran's uranium enrichment program, which Washington and some of its allies contend masks a weapons program, there has been speculation in the region that the United States might want to use bases in Azerbaijan to attack Iran.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "The Caspian Sea is an inland sea and it only belongs to the Caspian states, therefore only they are entitled to have their ships and military forces here."

Western officials are watching Putin's visit, the first by a Kremlin leader to Tehran since 1943, to see if the Russian leader extracts any concessions from the Iranians concerning their nuclear program. The officials complain that Russia, together with China, has been blocking imposition of stronger U.N. sanctions against the Islamic republic.

There were no apparent breakthroughs during Putin's visit. Public statements from the gathering were instead indirectly critical of Iran's foreign opponents.

The five countries -- Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan -- declared that any country that is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can "carry out research and can use nuclear energy for peaceful means without discrimination." That is essentially the position of Iran, a signatory, which says all of its work is peaceful and intended to diversify its electricity sources.

Before the visit, Putin brushed aside a reported assassination plot against him by suicide bombers. He is the first leader from Moscow to visit Iran since Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin met with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill at a World War II summit in 1943.

Tuesday's meeting was designed to continue the process of working out disputes over allocating the Caspian Sea's rich resources of oil and natural gas. But it was overshadowed by the growing standoff over the intentions behind Iran's nuclear program.

Putin met one-on-one with Ahmadinejad and was scheduled to have dinner with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Although Russia has signed on to two rounds of mild economic sanctions at the United Nations, Putin is skeptical of stronger sanctions, contending they will fail and insulate Iran from further diplomatic pressure, according to Kremlin officials.

"Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere," Putin said in Germany on Monday before leaving for Iran. "They are not afraid, believe me."

Both the United States and the European Union support a further round of sanctions unless Iran stops its accelerated enrichment of uranium and completely opens up its program to U.N. inspections.

Putin has said there is no evidence that Iran's nuclear program has a military dimension, but the Kremlin nonetheless has delayed construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran, ostensibly because of a financial dispute. Many analysts here say the Kremlin was angered by Iran's unwillingness to accept a Russian proposal to enrich uranium, on Russian soil, for Iran's needs.

Putin refused to say if the plant could begin operation before he leaves office next year.

"I only gave promises to my mom when I was a small boy," Putin told Iranian reporters. "At the same time, we are not going to renounce our obligations."

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 17, 2007, 07:22:05 am
Putin: Iran nuke plans 'peaceful'

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/index.html?section=cnn_latest (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

Story Highlights
Russian President Putin backs Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program during visit

Putin in Tehran to attend summit of Caspian Sea nations to discuss oil rights

Iran, Russia set to discuss Iranian nuclear program, U.S. push for sanctions

Putin downplay rumors of assassination plot; Iran says claims are "baseless"

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran should be allowed to pursue its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday during the first visit to the country by a Kremlin leader since 1943.

Putin, who is in Tehran to attend a summit of Caspian Sea nations, said that he and the other leaders agreed that "peaceful nuclear activities must be allowed" in the region.

"The Iranians are cooperating with Russian nuclear agencies and the main objectives are peaceful objectives," he said.

Russia is building Iran's first nuclear power plant and has resisted moves by the U.S. and its allies to impose stronger U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the Bush administration's stance that "all options" must be kept "on the table" in confronting the threats posed by Iran -- a reference to the option of using military action against the long-time U.S. adversary.

"We should have no illusions about the nature of this regime or its leaders -- about their designs for their nuclear program, their willingness to live up to their rhetoric, their intentions for Iraq, or their ambitions in the Gulf region," Gates said in a speech to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

The leaders of Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan also met Tuesday to reach agreement on issues relating to the sharing and regulating of the Caspian Sea -- the world's largest inland body of water.

Speaking afterwards, Putin said that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third parties intent on military action against other countries in the region -- a reference to rumors that the U.S. planned to use Azerbaijan as a base for a possible attack against Iran, The Associated Press reported.

"We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state," Putin said.

"The Caspian Sea is an inland sea and it only belongs to the Caspian states, therefore only they are entitled to have their ships and military forces here," added Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Putin, defying reports of an assassination plot against him, was greeted by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as he stepped off his plane at Tehran's Mehrabad Airport.

During a news conference Monday after talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Wiesbaden, Germany, Putin said rumors of an attempt on his life would not stop his plans.

"Of course I will travel to Iran," Putin said. "If I reacted to these kinds of rumors every time, I could never leave the house."

Iranian officials denied there was an assassination plot against Putin, with a Foreign Ministry spokesman describing rumors of a possible terrorist action during the Putin visit baseless.

"Spreading this kind of totally false news lacks any value and cannot damage the trend of the prepared programs," spokesman Mohammadali Hosseini told the Iranian FARS news agency.

Hosseini blamed the rumor on Western media, particularly the U.S. media, saying the report was "made up by the enemies of relations between Iran and Russia to create a psychological war."

Putin's visit is the first by a leader in the Kremlin to Iran since Joseph Stalin's World War II conference meeting with U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

"Putin's trip to Tehran is a show of Russia's independence in global affairs. Putin, who approaches the end of his term, wants to demonstrate that he wouldn't cave in to the U.S. pressure," said Alexander Pikayev, an expert on Iran with Russia's Institute for World Economy and International Relations, in a report carried by AP.

Putin's schedule also includes meetings with Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, AP said.

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 17, 2007, 08:27:19 am
Giuliani, McCain: U.S. should prepare to use force against Iran 
 
By The Associated Press
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.html)
 
Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain
said Tuesday they would be prepared as president to use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

Giuliani characterized Iran as a state sponsor of terror that is seeking nuclear weapons and said Tehran needs to understand how the United States would respond to that development.
 Advertisement
 
"Anybody who wants to be president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use American military power," the former New York City mayor said. "But as president, you can't hesitate to do that, if it's in the best interest of the United States."

"You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants and terrorists," he added. "Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe."

On Iran specifically, Giuliani said, "We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will never find out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them."

Said McCain, "At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons."

The presidential candidates spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Last week, Giuliani reiterated during a presidential debate his stance in favor of a military option against a nuclear Iran.

On another subject, Giuliani said he would not negotiate with the Palestinians on the situation in the Middle East until two conditions are met: acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and a good-faith effort to stop terror.

"If they do those two things and mean it, then of course we can negotiate," Giuliani said. "We would like to have peace. But we don't want to have a peace in which we are taken advantage of. We don't want to have a peace in which Americans and Israelis are getting killed. And we certainly don't want to create another terrorist-supporting state. We
have too many of them already."


Related articles:


The Israel Factor: Think how McCain's position on Iran fared better than Giuliani's

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=913439 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=913439)

Think tank: Israel could attack Iran's nuclear program alone

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/808677.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/808677.html)

Rosner's blog: Romney's position on attacking Iran? Better ask his lawyers

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=911160&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=4#article911160 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=911160&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=4#article911160)
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 18, 2007, 08:10:11 am
Putin sides with Iran on nuclear question
Tehran's neighbors warned against foreign collaboration

By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times
Inside Bay Area
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_7201857 (http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_7201857)
Article Last Updated:10/17/2007 08:57:41 AM PDT
 
TEHRAN, Iran — Russian President Vladimir Putin, appearing side by side with his Iranian counterpart at a five-nation summit here Tuesday, made a powerful show of support for America's regional arch-enemy, drawing the line against any attack on Iran and reaffirming Iran's right to civilian nuclear use.
At the same time, Putin stopped short of unconditional support of the Iranian regime, although the tenor of his remarks appeared at odds with earlier suggestions from the Bush administration that Putin might take a more pro-Western stance.

Days after publicly dismissing U.S. plans for a missile defense system, Putin arrived in the Iranian capital in a painstakingly scrutinized visit that was the first here by a Kremlin leader since Josef Stalin mapped out World War II strategy with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1943.

Putin told reporters that Tehran had the right to continued civilian nuclear enrichment.

"Russia is the only country that has assisted Iran in implementing its peaceful nuclear program," Putin said. "We believe all countries have the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program."

The Russian president also warned the other Caspian Sea nations present not to allow their countries to be used for military assaults against Iran, a clear message to the U.S., which has refused to rule out an attack to halt or slow the Iranian nuclear program it believes is ultimately aimed at building nuclear weapons.

"We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state," Putin told reporters.

The U.S. maintains strong military ties with the Caspian Sea nation of Azerbaijan, and has been wooing Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan for flyover privileges and intelligence sharing.

The three nations, all formerly part of the Soviet Union, retain authoritarian leadership and have become political battlegrounds between the U.S. and Russia.

Bush administration officials disclaimed any disappointment in Putin's visit to Tehran or his comments, but face a growing challenge in dealing with Putin's maverick, frequently anti-U.S. public statements.

Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, said the U.S. did not object to Putin's appearance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said the administration still believes Moscow agrees with U.S. and European aims on Iran's nuclear program.

"The Russian government position on this hasn't changed," Casey said. "I don't think the Russian government has been, in any way, shape or form, trying to encourage Iran's nuclear developments. In fact, they've been very concerned about it."

However, senior U.S. officials earlier had expressed optimism that the Russian president would demonstrate greater public cooperation with American and Western European goals on Iran. The U.S. officials included Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who met with Putin in Moscow on Friday.

Tight security was the watchword for the summit here, with black-clad Iranian security forces gripping submachine guns lining the upscale streets near the Sadabad Palace, a 19th century compound in north Tehran.

Putin came ostensibly to discuss energy, security and environmental policy with his regional counterparts, and international analysts say he would have attended the summit regardless of the heightened international tensions over Iran's nuclear program.

But the image of Putin smiling in appearances with Ahmadinejad as well as the leaders of three other nations, served to highlight the dramatic differences between the Russian and American relationships with Iran, which Washington views as its principal adversary in the region and Moscow considers a valuable ally and trading partner.

"In case you haven't noticed, Russia doesn't have a lot of friends," said Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a Washington think-tank, and an expert on Russia . "Putin is looking for friends and strategic alliances where he can find them."

The U.S. and Western European powers believe Iran is cloaking an effort to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it is only seeking to produce energy for civilian use. The U.S. and France hope to slap Iran with a third round of international sanctions, which Russia and China oppose.

Russia and China appear more willing than the U.S. to tolerate Iran enriching its own uranium as long as it clears up lingering doubts about the peaceful intent of its past nuclear research. To the longstanding dismay of the U.S., Russia is also building a light-water nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian city of Bushehr and annually conducts $2 billion in trade with Iran.

Despite Putin's rhetorical support, analysts say Moscow harbors misgivings about Iran. The Kremlin deplores Ahmadinejad's belligerent talk, including his questioning of the Holocaust and the country's defiant tone on its nuclear program. It fears its association with Iran could damage its carefully cultivated relations with Israel and Europe, especially Germany.

While he condemned any possible U.S. attack, Putin did not vow to stand up for Iran in case of one.

And although the Russian president's presence at the summit might have lowered the Iranian government's sense of isolation, Putin left Tehran without granting Iran any of the concessions it had hoped for, including a timetable for the completion of the Russian-built nuclear plant in Bushehr or a deal on divvying up Caspian Sea energy reserves.

Putin's visit also signaled Russia's claim to a large share of the oil and gas-rich Caspian basin, believed to hold the world's third-largest energy reserves. Russia and Iran are united in opposition to U.S. plans for building pipelines that draw petroleum and natural gas out of the region without passing through either country.

Although Iran borders less than 15 percent of the Caspian, it insists on a fifth of its resources, a demand the other countries reject.

Special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran and Times staff writers Peter Spiegel in Washington and David Holley in Moscow contributed to this report.
 
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 18, 2007, 08:15:54 am
Russians Will Finish Iranian Nuclear Power Plant – Putin Promises To Help Defend Iran From Attack From The West
 
Submitted by Dan Wilson on October 16, 2007 - 5:26pm. 
http://bestsyndication.com/?q=101607_russia_to_help_iran_build_nukes_and_protect_from_west.htm (http://bestsyndication.com/?q=101607_russia_to_help_iran_build_nukes_and_protect_from_west.htm)
 
 
(Best Syndication)
 Russian President Vladimir Putin promised to help the Iranians complete their nuclear reactor at Bushehr and to help protect the country from an attack by the west. Russia has many economic ties to the Persian country, including the contract for a nuclear power plant. The London Times reports that in a private meeting after the Summit of Caspian Nations, Putin promised to “assist Iran’s peaceful nuclear program”.

Tony Halpin in Moscow reports that Russia is building Iran’s first atomic power plant in the port city of Bushehr. Although Russia has delayed the delivery of nuclear fuel because of a delay in payments by Iran, Russian media reports that Moscow had promised to complete the work on schedule.

The Russian news agency Ria reports that the original contract goes back to 1995. The Russians complained that Tehran had only paid 60% of the required funds for the fourth quarter of 2006 and completely stopped payments in mid-January.

Putin says that the delays can be traced back to certain technical and legal problems from a 1975 construction contract between Iran and Germany. Ria does not specify whether the agreement was made between East or West Germany, but claims the contract was never implemented.

"At the start of the construction we received German equipment, which is obviously outdated," Putin said. He went on to say that some other subcontractors, including South Korea, failed to provide equipment under relevant contracts with Iran.

Putin said that these problems are cleared up now, and construction can move forward. "In addition, there are certain legal provisions in the [Russian-Iranian] contract that have to be revised and amended," the president said
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 18, 2007, 08:19:33 am
http://www.atimes.com  (http://www.atimes.com)     
 
 Caspian summit a triumph for Iran

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Few regional summits have drawn closer attention, by both the media and world governments, than this week's summit of leaders of Caspian littoral states in Tehran.

The two day summit, coinciding with twin nuclear crises and escalating US-Iran tensions relating to Iraq and the Middle East, is bound to be regarded as a milestone in regional cooperation, with serious ramifications for a broad array of issues transcending the Caspian Sea region.

Billed as a "great leap toward progress" by Mehdi Safari, Iran's



Deputy Foreign Minister in charge of Iran's Caspian affairs, the summit has been a great success for Iran as well as Russia and the other participants (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), and Tehran is likely to capitalize on it as a stepping stone for full membership of the Shanghai Cooperation  Organization (SCO), considered a security counterweight to NATO and US "hegemony".

Indeed, it is as much shared interests as common worries and concerns, eg, the US's unbounded interventionist policies, that have now brought Iran and Russia closer together and to the verge of a new strategic relationship. After all, both Iran and Russia are today objects of American coercion, their national security interests and objectives imperiled by the US's post-9/11 militarism and its feudalistic ossification of the international order.

The upshot of the Caspian summit is, in fact, a prominent message about the need to democratize the international order by erecting effective barriers to the American "leviathan", as shown by specific agreements reached at the summit, including prohibiting other countries from using the littoral states for attacks on one another "under any circumstances'', and disallowing any ship not flying the national flag of a littoral state on Caspian waters.

How did this summit come about? The answer is, first and foremost, by astute diplomatic efforts on Iran's part and, equally, by a strategic evolution of Russia's foreign policy that is no longer self-handicapped by prioritizing tactical or conjunctural interests above strategic ones.

Having reached this level, Moscow is now poised to enter into a new strategic relationship with Iran that will serve the geostrategic, security, and other shared interests of both nations.

"Iran is an important regional and global power," President Vladimir Putin said after his initial meeting with Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who has been much vilified in the West and yet is respected in the Third World and beyond as an assertive leader of a developing nation standing up to world-domineering policies.

A major achievement for Iran's diplomacy and particularly for Amadinejad's embattled foreign policy team, the "good news" summit will likely serve as the hinge that opens new breathing space for Iran's diplomacy, and not just toward the Caspian, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Iran's Persian Gulf policy is also bound to benefit from the improved image of Iran in the Middle East, making more attractive Iran's role as a corridor to Central Asia which the Arab world in general and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in particular can take advantage of in their external trade and energy policies.

Iran's summit diplomacy
The most salient feature of Iran's summit diplomacy has been its multifaceted complexity, seeking to enhance regional cooperation among the five Caspian littoral states by, for instance, initiating the idea of a Caspian regional organization to promote inter-region trade, and, simultaneously, pushing bilateral cooperation alongside multilateral cooperation. The net of bilateral and multilateral agreements signed at this summit is quite extensive and a detailed examination belongs elsewhere.

Suffice to say, however, that from Iran's vantage point the summit has been a complete turnaround from the rather disastrous Caspian Sea summit of leaders in Ashghabat, Turkmenistan, in 2002, when Putin prioritized the issue of Caspian delimitation and division, a divisive issue. In comparison, at this summit, the thorny subject of Caspian ownership and "legal regime" was relegated to the background, with the attending leaders focusing on areas of shared interests, transboundry issues, and trade, hoping that in subsequent meetings the goodwill generated at this summit will carry over to those more divisive issues.

Various expert-level meetings of the Caspian states have so far failed to resolve the ownership question and, from Iran's vantage point, given the relatively minor energy interests at stake in Iran's sector of the Caspian Sea, it made more sense to draw the right lesson from the Ashghabat failure and adopt a long-term view of things.

That approach by Iran has paid off handsomely, resulting in a sudden shift in the geostrategic climate in Iran's favor, in light of the joint communique of the other Caspian states regarding their refusal to allow their territory to be used for any militiary aggression against Iran, cemented by Putin's forceful statement against any such gambit.

Putin's other comment, regarding Russia's commitment to complete Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, represents yet another significant development for Iran, which has defied the UN Security Council's resolutions calling for a suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. By stating on record that there is no evidence to support the allegations of a nuclear weapon ambition on Iran's part, Putin looks to have provoked Washington's fury, as seen in Condoleezza Rice's instant counterpunch that Iran has been "lying" about its nuclear program. Yet more importantly Putin has signalled the beginning of the end of Rice-crafted "diplomatic consensus" vis-a-vis Iran.

As expected, the US government and mainstream media, unable to show any signs of adjustment to Russia's, and even China's, new line of thought toward Iran, have stepped up their Iran-bashing, with both the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal dedicating more of their opinion pages to the ritual anti-Iran commentaries.

Surely, the Tehran summit and its results represent a serious setback for Washington's Iran diplomacy, but they also show the defects of its Russia diplomacy and the fact that Moscow and Washington have reached a dead end. Putin has held his ground against his Washington detractors, wooing various European leaders such as Germany's Angela Merkel and snubbing the pro-US Nicolas Sarkozy, while working on a new model of Russia-EU relations that is not dominated by US prerogatives. There is undoubtedly an element of risk here and Putin's new Iran policy may backfire, particularly if he does not generate more Iranian cooperation on the nuclear issue.

Regarding the latter, Iran is apt to reciprocate Putin's gestures by accommodating itself to more IAEA demands, and next week's meeting of Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, with the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is an important occasion for Iran to appease Putin and his foreign policy circle, some of whom are openly worried about a parallel corrosion of US-Russia relations because of the new Iran-Russia developments.

Yet this is not a "zero-sum game" and US policy makers can draw the right impression about Iran's good neighborly policies benefiting regional and global peace, presently deepened in part thanks to Russia's singular influence on Iran. That is highly unlikely, however, and the continuation of the one-dimensional coercive policy toward Iran, so deeply entrenched in Washington, is the more likely scenario, no matter how out of sync with the rest of the world community.

The "lonely superpower" that Samuel Huntington once wrote about now appears dangerously on the verge of losing its "coalition of the willing" against Iran, both inside and outside the United Nations. The only choice is either stubborn refusal to make the necessary policy adjustments toward Iran, along the lines of a non-threatening civil diplomacy, or to face what is certain to be a diplomatic defeat in the global arena.

Iran's soft-power diplomacy should be given much credit for both the summit's success and the related frustration of the US's coercive diplomacy.

 
 
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 18, 2007, 08:33:56 am
October 18, 2007
Nuclear-Armed Iran Risks World War, Bush Says

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/18prexy.html?ex=1350360000&en=1b0d8a049da1c321&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/18prexy.html?ex=1350360000&en=1b0d8a049da1c321&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — President Bush issued a stark warning on Iran on Wednesday, suggesting that if the country obtained nuclear arms, it could lead to “World War III.”

“We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference, referring to a remark by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel “will disappear soon.” Mr. Bush said he had “told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Mr. Bush has said in the past that he would never “tolerate” a nuclear-armed Iran. But the comment on Wednesday was another sign that he did not accept a view stated last month by Gen. John P. Abizaid, who retired this year as the top American commander in the Middle East. The general said that “there are ways to live with a nuclear Iran.”

Mr. Bush sought in the news conference to make clear that his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, were aimed at persuading the Iranian people to find new leadership.

“The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government,” Mr. Bush said.

He added, “My intent is to continue to rally the world, to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point somebody else shows up and says it’s not worth the isolation.”

The president was responding to a question about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, who visited Iran this week and warned the United States against military action there. Before that, in Moscow, Mr. Putin said he saw “no evidence” that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Mr. Bush insisted that he and Mr. Putin see eye to eye on the Iranian nuclear threat.

“We don’t agree on a lot of issues,” Mr. Bush said. “We do agree on some: Iran is one; nuclear proliferation is another.”

The president made his remarks on a day when Mr. Putin appeared in newspaper photographs standing side by side with Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Bush dismissed any notion that the pictures reflected like-mindedness, saying, “Generally, leaders don’t like to be photographed scowling at each other.”

Mr. Bush has never quite been able to ride out his oft-quoted remark that he had looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes and gotten “a sense of his soul.” On Wednesday, he defended his brand of personal diplomacy, even as he expressed a wariness about Mr. Putin’s commitment to democracy.

Under Russia’s Constitution, Mr. Putin is supposed to step down next year, but he has indicated that he may try to keep his power by becoming prime minister. At a recent meeting in Australia, Mr. Bush said, he asked Mr. Putin about his plans.

“I tried to, you know, get it out of him — who’s going to be his successor, what he intends to do,” Mr. Bush said. “And he was wily. He wouldn’t tip his hand.”


Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 18, 2007, 08:37:03 am
Putin Is Said to Offer Idea on Standoff Over Iran
By NAZILA FATHI
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?ex=1350360000&en=22f8cdcfc6a90a12&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?ex=1350360000&en=22f8cdcfc6a90a12&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

TEHRAN, Oct. 17 — Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, proposed a new way to help resolve the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program during an extraordinary meeting with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the country’s chief nuclear negotiator on Wednesday.

The negotiator, Ali Larijani, told reporters that Mr. Putin, who was granted an audience with Ayatollah Khamenei on Tuesday evening, “offered a special proposal.” Neither the Iranians nor the Russians would disclose any details, but Mr. Larijani said the Iranian side was studying it.

“One of the issues he brought up was his view on the nuclear issue,” Mr. Larijani said, according to the ISNA news agency. “We are reviewing it now.”

State-run television and news agencies quoted Ayatollah Khamenei as telling Mr. Putin, “We will think about what you said and about your proposal,” even as he added that Iran was “determined to provide our country’s need for nuclear energy.”

Mr. Putin’s visit highlighted the fact that Russia seems to be increasingly distancing itself from the United States and the Europeans on a strategy to curb Iran’s nuclear program. While those nations have sought to impose new Security Council sanctions on Iran, the governments of Russia and China have resisted, arguing that more time is needed.

Earlier, Moscow proposed to enrich uranium in Russia for use in Iranian reactors, assuring that Iran would not produce the highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons. Tehran rejected the idea as an impingement on its sovereignty.

During his visit, which included a meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Putin also warned the West against a military attack on Iran, stressing that Tehran had a right to peaceful nuclear energy. He also said that the Russian-built nuclear power plant at Bushehr, in southern Iran, where construction has been slowed by a dispute over payments, would be finished as scheduled.

Underscoring the friendly nature of the visit, a joint statement spoke of “the closeness of Russian and Iranian positions over the key world questions and the development of cooperation to establish a world order that is more just.”

It also stressed the need to solve the nuclear issue as quickly as possible “through politics and diplomacy”; committed Russia to speed up discussions for the construction and sale of Tupolev 214 and Tupolev 334 airliners; and spoke of increased cooperation in energy and aerospace.

Russia is eager to deepen its diplomatic and economic relations with Iran. Iran’s Fars news service reported that Mr. Putin said during his meeting with Ayatollah Khamenei that Russia was ready to “expand ties without limitations.” As Iran’s most senior official, the ayatollah has final word on state matters, and his decision to see Mr. Putin was regarded as significant in itself. Even Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, did not see Ayatollah Khamenei when he visited here last year.

Mr. Putin has recently met with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Russia and China hold veto power on the Security Council, and Iran is relying on both countries, which have important trade ties with Iran, to oppose another round of sanctions. Moscow has already voted for two sets of milder sanctions. The United States and European countries have said that they will impose tougher sanctions on Iran if it refuses to suspend its sensitive uranium enrichment activities.

Mr. Larijani is scheduled to discuss Iran’s nuclear case with Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, in Rome next Tuesday.

An American official who was part of a delegation that visited the Kremlin last week suggested that Mr. Putin intimated in private that he had concerns about Iran’s nuclear program as well.

“I will tell you that what we heard last week once the cameras left was not bad,” said the official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record. “I cannot rule out that he delivered a message that we would like.”

He also said that the construction delays at Bushehr were not coincidental and were part of Russia’s strategy of proceeding slowly with aid to Iran.

In Jerusalem, Ms. Rice answered questions about Mr. Putin’s visit to Iran by saying that Russia continued to back the diplomatic process to review the possibility of new sanctions following reports next month by Dr. ElBaradei and Mr. Solana. Russia, along with China, opposed a new round of sanctions at a meeting in New York last month.

Neither Mr. Solana nor Dr. ElBaradei was informed by the Russians about Mr. Putin’s proposal, officials in both their offices said. Ms. Rice discussed Iran extensively during meetings in Moscow last week, including one with Mr. Putin, who she said supported the goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “I saw no evidence that Russia intends to do anything but stay on that path we laid out,” she said, appearing with Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni.

But clearly Russia has emerged as at least a semi-independent broker in the nuclear crisis. Just hours after Mr. Putin left Iran, Israel announced that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would visit Russia on Thursday for what one official described as a “last-minute, urgent meeting.”

U.S. Ties Missile Shield to Iran

BRUSSELS, Oct. 17 (Agence France-Presse) — The United States could change its approach to developing a missile shield if Iran were to suspend uranium enrichment in its nuclear program, a senior State Department official said on Wednesday.

The official, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said that United States officials had explained Washington’s stance to Russia in talks at NATO headquarters to help allay fears that the missile shield posed a threat to Russia. “Our real concern is not Russia,” Mr. Fried told reporters in Brussels.

C. J. Chivers contributed reporting from Moscow, and Steven Lee Myers from Jerusalem.


Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 18, 2007, 08:40:57 am
Will we fall for war vs. Iran?

October 17, 2007
http://www.suntimes.com/news/greeley/606071,CST-EDT-greel17.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/greeley/606071,CST-EDT-greel17.article)
ANDREW GREELEY agreel@aol.com
It would appear, according to news reports, that the hard-liners in the Bush administration, led by the vice president, are pushing for a war with Iran. The tactics are the same. Once you've played the fear card to start one war, the second time is easier.

Iran is a threat to American security and freedom. They are trying to build nuclear bombs to use against us. They are already killing Americans in Iraq. They hate us and our freedom. Eliminating the Iranian government and destroying its nuclear facilities is essential to the security of the United States and part of the international war on terror.

Will the shell game work again? I would like to think that it would not, that the American people will not be won over by "war on terror" propaganda, that Congress would not be taken in this time (not even Sen. Hillary Clinton), and that the national media would raise a loud hue and cry against yet another "preemptive war.''

Yet surely the hawks would shout once again that in a "national security emergency" the commander in chief has the power to go to war without authorization from Congress. The president might argue that Gen. David Petraeus approved the attack. Indeed, those on the dark side could even suggest that a presidential election could be "postponed" until the Iranian crisis is over -- and like the Iraq crisis, that might be never.

Once you have stolen one and maybe two presidential elections, it's relatively easy to steal a third, especially as part of the "global war on terror" and a "national security emergency."

A year ago, I would not have suspected that such a scenario could possibly be taken seriously. I'm not so sure anymore. The claims made for the almost unlimited power of the commander in chief seem to make anything, however bizarre, possible. Despite intense national opposition to the war in Iraq, there are enough "patriotic" cement heads in the country to provide support for such a project.

Cries like "nuke the Iranians before they nuke us" would be heard in the land. It might tip the national election to a Republican candidate -- perhaps the 9/11 candidate from New York City -- and to a majority of Republicans in Congress.

The president could even hint that such a war was ''the right thing to do,'' a conclusion he had reached after a long conversation with God.

There is precious little that those who are opposed to such a war could do. The president, his vice president could assert, is the commander in chief. He has the inherent power to start a war if he deems it necessary for the security of the country. The National Security Council could eavesdrop on opponents to the war, and the FBI could turn up with "national security letters" to probe into the lives of these "security risks." The pliant Supreme Court, having permitted the president to seize an election on the grounds of equal rights under the law, could easily phony up an argument that Justices Scalia and Thomas and their allies would support.

Perhaps the House could vote a bill of impeachment but there are not enough votes for conviction in the Senate. And the president could dismiss such an action as a violation of his powers as commander in chief.

Certainly Congress could pass a joint resolution now against such a war. But they would need half a dozen Republican senators to support it. That's not likely to happen. And the president could claim that he has the inherent power to ignore such a resolution.

When it comes to war in this administration, Dick Cheney always gets his way.



Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 19, 2007, 07:13:10 am
Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike
 
by Gareth Porter
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11781 (http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11781)

The George W. Bush administration's shift from the military option of a massive strategic attack against Iran to a surgical strike against selected targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker earlier this month, appears to have been prompted not by new alarm at Iran's role in Iraq but by the explicit opposition of the nation's top military leaders to an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The reorientation of the military threat was first signaled by passages on Iran in Bush's Jan. 10 speech and followed by only a few weeks a decisive rejection by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a strategic attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Although scarcely mentioned in press reports of the speech, which was devoted almost entirely to announcing the troop "surge" in Iraq, Bush accused both Iran and Syria of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq." Bush also alleged that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

Those passages were intended in part to put pressure on Iran, and were accompanied by an intensification of a campaign begun the previous month to seize Iranian officials inside Iraq. But according to Hillary Mann, who was director for Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Affairs on the National Security Council staff in 2003, they also provided a legal basis for a possible attack on Iran.

"I believe the president chose his words very carefully," says Mann, "and laid down a legal predicate that could be used to justify later military action against Iran."

Mann says her interpretation of the language is based on the claim by the White House of a right to attack another country in "anticipatory self-defense" based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That had been the legal basis cited by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had in September 2002 in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

The introduction of a new reason for striking Iran, which also implied a much more limited set of targets related to Iraq, followed a meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Dec. 13, 2006 in which the uniformed military leaders rejected a strike against Iran's nuclear program. Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein, reported last May that military and intelligence sources told him that Bush had asked the Joint Chiefs at the meeting about a possible strike against the Iranian nuclear program., and that they had unanimously opposed such an attack.

Mann says that she was also told by her own contacts in the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs had expressed opposition to a strike against Iran.

The Joint Chiefs were soon joined in opposition to a strike on Iran by Admiral William Fallon, who was nominated to become CENTCOM commander in January. Mann says Pentagon contacts have also told her that Fallon made his opposition to war against Iran clear to the White House.

IPS reported last May that Fallon had indicated privately that he was determined to prevent an attack on Iran and even prepared to resign to do so. A source who met with Fallon at the time of his confirmation hearing quoted him as vowing that there would be "no war with Iran" while he was CENTCOM commander and as hinting very strongly that he would quit rather than go along with an attack.

Although he did not specifically refer to the Joint Chiefs, Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, "There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box," according to the same source.

Fallon's opposition to a strike against Iranian nuclear, military and economic targets would make it very difficult, if not impossible for the White House to carry out such an operation, according to military experts. As CENTCOM commander, Fallon has complete control over all military access to the region, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert on military strategy who has taught at the National War College.

Douglas McGregor, a retired Army Lt. Col. who was a tank commander in the 1991 Gulf War and has taught at the National Defense University, agrees. "I find it hard to imagine that anything can happen in the area without the involvement of the Central Command," says McGregor.

The possibility that Fallon might object to an unprovoked attack on Iran or even resign over the issue represents a significant deterrent to such an attack.

Former NSC adviser Mann believes the Iraq-focused strategy is now aimed at averting any resignation threat by Fallon or other military leaders by carrying out a very limited strike that would be presented as a response to a specific incident in Iraq in which the deaths of US soldiers could be attributed to Iranian policy. She says she doubts Fallon and other military leaders would "fall on their swords" over such a strike.

Gardiner agrees that Fallon is unlikely to refuse to carry out such a limited strike under those circumstances.

Mann believes the Bush-Cheney purpose in advancing the strategy is to provoke Iranian retaliation. "The concern I have is that it would be just enough so Iranians would retaliate against US allies," she says.

But the issue of what evidence of Iranian complicity would be adequate to justify such a strike evidently remains a matter of debate within the administration. A story published by McClatchy newspapers Aug. 9 reported that Vice President Dick Cheney had argued some weeks earlier for a strike against camps in Iran allegedly used to train Iraqi Shiite militiamen fighting US troops if "hard new evidence" could be obtained of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-US forces in Iraq.

But Cheney and his allies have been frustrated in the search for such evidence. Mann notes that British forces in southern Iraq patrolled the border very aggressively for six months last year to find evidence of Iranian involvement in supplying weapons to Iraqi guerrillas but found nothing.

After several months of trying to establish specific links between Iraqis suspected of trafficking in weapons to a specific Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard contact, the US command has not claimed a single case of such a link. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the US commander for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted in a Jul. 6 briefing that his troops had not captured "anybody that we can tie to Iran."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is known to be closely allied with Cheney on Iran policy, has betrayed impatience with a policy that depends on obtaining proof of Iranian complicity in attacks. On Jun. 11 he called for "strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

Lieberman repeated that position on Jul. 2, but thus far it has not prevailed.

(Inter Press Service)

 
 
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 19, 2007, 07:30:35 am
Pushing War With Iran
By: William F. Jasper
October 29, 2007
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5999 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5999)

“Bush Warns of a Nuclear Armed Iran,” blared the headline of an Associated Press report on the president’s October 3, 2007 speech before the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Do the increasingly strident statements by the president, as well as by State Department and Pentagon officials, over the past several months signal that a U.S. military attack on Iran may be imminent? Both opponents and supporters of a military strike believe it is coming soon, based not only on official administration rhetoric and the observable preparatory movement of U.S. military assets, but also on the White House’s use of private sources to build a pro-war constituency among the American public.

In recent months there has been a marked escalation of calls — by neoconservative think tanks, radio talk shows, and media organs closely allied to the Bush administration — for a massive pre-emptive U.S. military strike on Iran. Some prominent spokesmen are openly calling for the U.S. to use tactical nuclear missiles. Is this a spontaneous crescendo of popular support or a huge propaganda campaign initiated by White House spinmeisters?

On September 30, the Israeli internet news site, IsraelNationalNews.com, reported on the comments of two of the leading neoconservative war hawks, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz. The story by Gil Ronen, entitled “Bolton, Podhoretz Say: Bomb Iranian Nuclear Plants,” reports:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Conservative Party delegates in Britain on Sunday that UN efforts to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Influential conservative thinker Norman Podhoretz told a British paper that he has advised U.S. President George W. Bush to do just that.


As THE NEW AMERICAN reported in its April 2 cover story, “Engineering War,” the Bush administration has been strongly signaling for months that it is preparing militarily for a massive attack on Iran. It also has been trying to prepare the public psyche to accept this aggression as a course of action that is unavoidable; there is, supposedly, no other alternative.

Neocon War Drums
That is the unmistakable message that is being sent repeatedly through the neoconservative transmission belts in the blogosphere, the lecture circuits, talk radio, television news, and the political campaign trails. The building crescendo has the sound and smell of a government-orchestrated propaganda campaign. Back on August 31, the New Yorker posted an online report from Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin who cited an unnamed Washington neoconservative source who says the current warmongering upsurge has come specifically at the behest of Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Mr. Rubin:

They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be a heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this — they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”


We cannot confirm whether or not the above-mentioned news organs are taking direction from Mr. Cheney. We don’t need to; all of them are, in point of fact, carrying out a “heavy sustained assault” for an imminent pre-emptive attack on Iran. And their voices are being amplified by the usual war-hawk choristers that have usurped the conservative label.

But Bolton’s speech in England shows that the propaganda line has a built-in mission-creep message. Although the initial selling point to the party faithful is that Iran’s WMD capabilities must be taken out because of the potential threat posed to Israel and America, the war plans are morphing into much grander objectives, starting with “regime change.” (Where have we heard that before; and where has it ever ended with that, once regime change was effected?)

Mr. Bolton told his British audience that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove “the source of the problem,” namely, Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Here’s how IsraelNationalNews.com reported it:

“If we were to strike Iran,” Bolton said, “it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change as well, because I think that really sends the signal that we are not attacking the people, [but rather] the nuclear weapons program. The U.S. once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.” His words were met with applause and cheers.


Of course, if Ahmadinejad were removed (and even executed), we would soon find (as we found in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq when Milosevich, the Taliban and Saddam, respectively, were removed) that the mission had “evolved” from regime change to nation building. Which, naturally, means perpetual occupation of Iran by U.S. military forces (already spread deadly thin) or UN “coalition-of-the-willing” military forces paid for by the American taxpayers (already bled thin).

Mr. Podhoretz is now a senior foreign-policy adviser to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who seems to revel in his image as the most hawkish of the Republican hopefuls. Giuliani has publicly stated his position in favor of a pre-emptive military strike and doesn’t rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain are also keeping the nuclear option on the table.

Pre-emptive Blitz
The Sunday Times of London reported on September 2 that the Pentagon had already drawn up plans for a “three day blitz” on over one thousand targets to take out Iran’s entire military:

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.


Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.


Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus.”


Alexis Debat, the French terrorism and security “expert” cited by the Times, has been a major neocon cheerleader for widening the Iraq War policies and for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He has been presented as an expert on terrorism and/or national security, not only by the Sunday Times (an organ of Rupert Murdoch’s hawkish media empire), but also by ABC News, PBS, the Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Time, the International Herald Tribune, and the National Interest. He was until recently a reporter and consultant for ABC News and a senior fellow at the prestigious Nixon Center. However, it turns out that Monsieur Debat is a complete fraud. “Dr.” Debat’s Ph.D. from the Sorbonne doesn’t exist. The interviews he supposedly conducted with Alan Greenspan, Bill Gates, Barak Obama, Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, and others were totally fabricated. ABC News and the Nixon Center have quietly announced that he “resigned” recently from their employ.

However, the one story the now-toxic and discredited Alexis Debat very likely did not fabricate out of thin air is his report on the administration’s plans for an upcoming “shock and awe” assault on Iran. Debat’s claim of an imminent massive strike against the Tehran regime tracks very closely with the stories that the Bush spin doctors have been feeding to other trusted sources — such as Bolton, Podhoretz, and other neocons. Even more importantly, it tracks with the concentrated deployment of U.S. carrier groups and other military assets to the Persian Gulf over the past year and the escalating saber-rattling by Bush war hawks in the Pentagon, the State Department, and on Capitol Hill
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: bigron on October 20, 2007, 07:56:13 am
Mid-East expert admits: No proof of Iran nukes


CSIS Eurasia and Russian expert Andrew Kuchins admitted that there is no proof that Iran is trying to amass a nuclear arsenal.


WATCH INTERVIEW VIDEO HERE:

[url][http://www.aljazeera.com/mm/video/video.php?op=showvideo&vidid=112/url]

Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: UpsetBrit on October 30, 2007, 06:19:54 pm
I'm in the middle of reading this huge and intelligent thread so forgive me if i've yet to read this in here or on a similar thread i've yet to read.

What were the yield of the rogue nukes, does anyone know?

That would give us an idea as to the neocons agenda with regard to targets ie high yield might mean city targets?

Maybe nobody knows but i'm stocking up on tape and supplies incase Russia decides to backup their new friends. I mean, Russia recently said that an attack on Iran would be considered in Moscow as an attack on Russia!
I live close to an oil depot and if a major world conflict arises, i'd be pretty much incinerated alongside my daughters and nothing short of a nuclear shelter would save us.
Title: Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
Post by: Dig on November 01, 2007, 03:11:52 pm
I'm in the middle of reading this huge and intelligent thread so forgive me if i've yet to read this in here or on a similar thread i've yet to read.

What were the yield of the rogue nukes, does anyone know?

That would give us an idea as to the neocons agenda with regard to targets ie high yield might mean city targets?

Maybe nobody knows but i'm stocking up on tape and supplies incase Russia decides to backup their new friends. I mean, Russia recently said that an attack on Iran would be considered in Moscow as an attack on Russia!
I live close to an oil depot and if a major world conflict arises, i'd be pretty much incinerated alongside my daughters and nothing short of a nuclear shelter would save us.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4677.0