Author Topic: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!  (Read 76429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #40 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!!!!!!!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #41 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
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Cruise4

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,384
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #42 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.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2007, 11:42:19 am »
Network - Mad as hell

5 min - Jan 19, 2007 -    (68 ratings)   
Network 1976 Beale Mad as hell


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!!"
           
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Phineas

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • glitch in the matrix
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #44 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.

Offline jannerbob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #45 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.

Offline Phineas

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • glitch in the matrix
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #46 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  >:(

Offline combine2k

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #47 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.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
US Fiscal Armageddon: a pretext for invasion of Iran and WWIII
« Reply #48 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 !
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Rufus Shinra

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #49 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.


Empire of the City -- Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549

Please take your time to watch Part 1 and Part 2... it's very informative.

Offline aLLyOuRbAsE

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,924
  • Free Man
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #50 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.
Peace and Love.

If I don't, who will?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

The ends do NOT justify the means...

Offline clint

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #51 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.
Ive had enough of reading things by neurotic,
psychotic, pigheaded politicians, all I want is the truth, just gimme some truth.

(John Lennon)

Offline aLLyOuRbAsE

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,924
  • Free Man
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #52 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
Peace and Love.

If I don't, who will?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

The ends do NOT justify the means...

Offline Sub-X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,828
  • FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real...
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #53 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.
“If you strike at,imprison,or kill us,out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you,and perhaps,raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”-James Connolly 1909


DARK HALF-END GAME

Offline Hawkwind39

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #54 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.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #55 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.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Hawkwind39

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #56 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.

Offline jannerbob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #57 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.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #58 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.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #59 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.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #60 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.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Bossgator

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Patriot in Arizona
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #61 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."
In the end, all that's left is the truth! - Bossgator

When in politics and faced with two men who are both evil, do you choose the lesser of those two evils? NO! Execute them both and find someone who is *not* evil.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #62 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
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Bossgator

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Patriot in Arizona
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #63 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!
In the end, all that's left is the truth! - Bossgator

When in politics and faced with two men who are both evil, do you choose the lesser of those two evils? NO! Execute them both and find someone who is *not* evil.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
IRAN WAR IS ON!!!!!!!!!! CNN RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #64 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!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Phineas

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • glitch in the matrix
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2007, 10:14:20 pm »
i predict we are going to see iran bombed before the 22nd of sep

Offline BASSFIRE

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #66 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
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

-Matthew 11:28

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Red October: Russia, Iran and Iraq
« Reply #67 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?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
IAEA Chief Warns Against Striking Iran !!
« Reply #68 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

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

JConner

  • Guest
Re: Red October: Russia, Iran and Iraq
« Reply #69 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...

Offline Rufus Shinra

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #70 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..  ???


Empire of the City -- Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549

Please take your time to watch Part 1 and Part 2... it's very informative.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
IRAN WAR False Flag still an option, but pre-empive strike ruled out...
« Reply #71 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.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Change? YOU BE THE CHANGE! Don't HOPE others will
    • Wake Up People
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #72 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
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". - Claire Wolfe

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. -Rush Limbaugh

The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freeme

Offline Phineas

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • glitch in the matrix
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #73 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?

Offline SpaceCommand

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #74 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.
And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

Offline This American

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #75 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.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline blues

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
What Then?
« Reply #77 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.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #78 on: September 23, 2007, 08:50:13 pm »
Do they think we are just raw material for their WWIII meat grinder?

And when we ask questions we get publicly tortured by puppet cops at the orders of elite nazi police?

Another unproked war?

Another one?

When are they going to stop killing millions of innocents because Rothschild/Rockefeller want their NWO?

When are we going to stop allowing our Congress to sanction torture?

When are we going to speak out against this fascism?

This is how we used to deal with fascism in the USA


"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!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #79 on: September 25, 2007, 07:32:07 am »

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