Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran

[sabra]

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=050812174659.za5zrtj4.php

Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran

US President George W. Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over the Islamic Republic's resumption of nuclear activities, in an interview with Israeli television aired Friday.

When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: "All options are on the table."


"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.


"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

[Roland99]

1. Here we go again! BTW, what did Iraq have to do with securing the U.S.?

Oh yeah!



N O T H I N G ! ! !

[jmc777]

150. Nothing, but it had everything to do with securing Israel. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Exact replay of the build up to Iraq. He is going to do it.

He is going to invade Iran.

[sabra]

3. I am almost 100% sure something is going to happen.

And it freaks me out!

[Roland99]

6. Can you say, d-r-a-f-t ?

[katsy]

16. No.

I can say no fucking way... * can go kill himself.

[Roland99]

28. Works for me.

[Vox_Reason]

39. Because of Iraq, a draft is the only way * could invade Iran.

It's way larger than Iraq, and the civilians will be MUCH more hostile.

And you'd have to be naive to think that NK would miss the opportunity to make hay while our hands are so tied.

What. A. Disaster.

[Roland99]

44. More like WMD: What a Massive Disaster

[kestrel91316]

202. Hell, he doesn't need an army to invade Iran,

He'll just nuke the place into glass.

Mark my words.

Satan's spawn, Antichrist...........I'm not sure what the hell to call this SOB.

[Daftly]

60. Invasion, but no Draft

This is freaking me out. He is actually going to do it again. But from my logic,(limited as it is) there is no way on this earth that there will be a draft. Face it, the Rethugs are all about politics and a draft would bring too many votes against them.

No, the strategy will not be an invade, conqueror, hold, and perhaps rebuild. It will be strictly air targeting. Bombs, bombs, bombs, and more bombs. Anything that could be construed as a military target will be bombed to ruble. The Iranian Air Force will not last much longer than the Iraqis in Gulf War I. The Iranians will not send their troops across the border into Iraq because doing so would be a suicide mission for all those involved. Without air support, a large contingent of ground forces would be slaughtered from the air before they could reach anything of consequence.

The only thing that would save Iran is a group of nations who are willing to stand up to the US with their own military. Unfortunately, world bodies and foreign governments are as cowardly as this administration is tyrannical. No one will defend Iran just as no one defended Iraq. Shoot! No one would even get involved in Rwanda, Kashmir, or the Sudan. What would give anyone any hope that they would stand up the the US.

It pains me to say this, but lacking a world body with a spine, the Iranians should capitulate completely. They are in a no win situation, but at least capitulation is survival.

:cry:

[reprobate]

175. You can bomb Iran to rubble, but without boots on the ground,

you can't invade. And we have no boots to put on the ground. We are totally occupied in Iraq.

[davekriss]

176. Capitulation did not work for Iraq

Bush invaded anyway.

[Daftly]

207. That was not capitulation, that was deathbed repentance.

He should have capitulated long before the build up began.

[davekriss]

209. You may be right with that!

However, note, that Hussein reached that "deathbed repentance" twice -- he offered GHWB a complete withdrawal from Kuwait in 1991 and GHWB ignored the offer, answering media inquiries with claims that Hussein was being disingenuous. Instead, GHWB had his war and we got, for more than a decade, the middle east garrisons we desired (in Saudi Arabia).

This second time Saddam complied with U.S. demands every step of the way but was check-mated by claims such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We could have strip searched Hussein on public TV and Bush still would have attacked.

In both cases the trumpeted cause for war had little to do with the actual desire and objectives. In both cases elite objectives were achieved -- namely, establishing strategically placed military bases in the middle east from which future imperial power can be radiated.

(9-11 did change everything -- it forced Bush to move U.S. bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq -- seems to me OBL won, he got us out of Saudi as intended.)

[eggman67]

213. I think one of his biggest mistakes

was counting on the UN to protect him. I think he honestly believed, foolishly, that the invasion wouldn't happened without UN SC approval and he knew that wouldn't happen. Rattling sabers against the US with GWB in office after 9/11 was not too bright.

[shadowknows69]

82. even worse

tactical nuclear weapons

[Deja Q]

101. Just as much as I can say k-r-a-f-t

[LSparkle]

20. When do those exercises start in S.C.?

I swear, that's going to be the reason given to invade Iran.

What a stupid, foolhardy, just-plain-DUMBASS!

[alfredo]

32. Remember Cheney's Iran war plans. Any large attack on us

will spark a nuclear attack on Iran. Saudi Arabia could ensure the destruction of Iran by sending over more terrorist to kill us. Israel could too.

[Podface]

38. You people are way off

All we have to do in Iran is blow shit up. There will be zero
resistance because the Iranian people will welcome us with
open arms. They want freedom. They want to be American.

Seriously though, Bush was lying when they said Iraq's would
welcome us. They don't care. We are constructing 70 Airbases
in Iraq as we speak. We don't need to get permission anymore
from anyone to mount a campaign in the middle east. Our
occupation and presence there ensures we can mount a massive
offensive anywhere in the middle east. 

In the end though, Bushco thinks all they have to do is
cripple the infrastructure, take out the government, and send
Halliburton in to build more airbases.  

What Bushco may miscalculate is how fucking big Iran's armed
forces are. 

[Oreo]

47. Welcome to DU

Always happy to see one of the good guys from my former home state

[alfredo]

64. Yeah, bush is going to pull our forces out of Iraq and send

them to Iran.

I don't see any invasion until after the mid term elections.

[shanti]

71. i sure do

things are getting a little too hot for the chimperor. he's not going to wait.

[alfredo]

73. He seems good at putting us into situations we can't back out

of. Of course he is very wealthy and very powerful. He won't have to pay the price.

[shanti]

70. "you people"???

hmmmmmm :evilfrown:

[liberalmike27]

171. Um,

All we have to do in Iran is blow shit up. There will be zero
resistance because the Iranian people will welcome us with
open arms. They want freedom. They want to be American.

This sounds so familiar. Hmmmm, where have I heard this before?

[kestrel91316]

203. (I think it was sarcasm)

[Eloriel]

40. Upcoming Terrorism Drills -- next week

Plans for August 17th -- Terrorist Drill -- Gen. Byrnes, Tell us More!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4320805

Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1692645
Link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/100805fourstargeneral.htm

General Kevin Byrnes: Fired for arguing with the Rumsfeld neo-con clique
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4307795

Removed from Duty
(see post #10 and this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4307593#4307648
and: General Kevin Byrnes: Fired for arguing with the Rumsfeld neo-con clique
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4307795

[Podface]

46. Prison Planet

article just made me puke.

puke - that's a funny word, puke - seinfeld

[Eloriel]

48. Well, I should say that

there are people here at DU who think prisonplanet shouldn't even be cited for ANYthing. :shrug: I've not done my own "study" of the site, so I just pass 'em along.

Frankly, I don't think anything will happen next week. But I DO worry about "something" happening if things go badly enough for this administration, and things have been trending down, generally, so ... I worry.

[Podface]

62. Oh

I agree. I'm not buying duck tape.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but I believe these guys need a fairly major crisis to take the heat off them.

[shanti]

45. LIHOP REDUX

:eyes:

[SaveAmerica]

92. What exercises?

[Mnemosyne]

152. There's an exercise where "terrorists" smuggle a nuke

off a ship, or something close to that, in SC next week. there's a link in post #40 above.

[LiberalCompassionate]

194. wasn't there a movie

about "terrorists" nuking Charleston S.C. in the 80's? I think it was called "through the looking glass". Does anyone remember the exact title /time period? :smoke:

[Mnemosyne]

200. Seems like there was one, but

can't recall the name anymore. Been suffering from CRS as I get older!!

Welcome LiberalCompassionate!

[LiberalCompassionate]

201. thank you!

I love being here..:woohoo:

[moodforaday]

195. In August

I've seen the date given as Aug 17, but the official release only says August:

http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.showstory&storyid=C9BFBBAC-F3CA-BD2E-008C7B34AFE33114

[BootinUp]

7. he would need more troops first, but

an airstrike is definitely in the realm of possibilities.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. They have people in Kuwait and all over the world.

rumsfeld was bragging about how the media is wrong and they have millions of guys they can call up.

[H5N1]

13. Yes he certainly is.

All doubt has vanished.

[Eloriel]

36. Exactly, precisely my thoughts.

My heart is so heavy. People, we have to stop this.

[VegasWolf]

4. Iran, just send an angry mother over to negotiate with Bush, that

will shut Bush up.

[rateyes]

5. We NEED to get his and Cheney's asses..

impeached and removed from office NOW. Dems in congress and senate, IMHO, ought to be calling for their resignations.

[Jamison]

8. They've been building their case for a while now.

I saw a report on Iran on Faux News and they were basically saying the the source of all the insurgents, weapons, and bombs in Iraq are coming across the border from Iran.:crazy:

[Zhade]

9. "All options are on the table."

Isn't that the exact wording the fucker used to illegally invade Iraq?

[katsy]

18. Yep.

Those were his exact words.

[bushisanidiot]

10. AWOL Bush refuses to rest until he's destroyed the U.S.

hey, as long as he's not the one fighting it's no big deal to him. he probably just spins a globe in his "office" and wherever his finger lands, that's where he's going to send our troops next.

he's a reckless IDIOT!

[Roland99]

11. BTW, didn't Iran just have *democratic* elections?

Isn't Iran then technically a *free* society?

Why would we invade them?

[TheFarseer]

12. To be fair to chimp

He can't say we definitely aren't going to use force or else Iran has no reason to get rid of nukes. Yes, the problem is that he's crazy enough to actually do it.

[NNN0LHI]

41. "...or else Iran has no reason to get rid of nukes." ??????

Excuse me but are you nuts? Saddam got rid of his nukes look where that got him.



Why in gods name would Iran get rid of their nukes? If you were an Iranian living in Tehran would you want your government to get rid of its nuclear program like Saddam did? Be honest now.

Don

[Daftly]

65. Iranians should capitulate 100%

Not because Bush is right, or because they don't have the right to build those weapons for self defense. Bush is wrong and they should be allowed to defend themselves.

However, they are in a situation where they cannot win. No one will defend them. The international bodies will do exactly what they did with Iraq. A whole lot of blustering and no real support for a sovereign nation. If they won't even lift a finger in the Sudan, what makes anyone think they will do anything but turn bitter words toward this misadministration.

Their air defenses will be decimated, and their cities will be bombed. Hundreds of thousands will die. And their government will be weakened if not toppled.

Facing that situation, they should do everything in their power to be as transparent as possible. Give the international bodies everything they want in exchange for a protection pact against unprovoked invasion. Shut down all nuclear facilities and offer an under the table oil agreement to Bush in order to sidestep what seems to be an otherwise unavoidable invasion.

It is ugly, but it think it is the most prudent if not distasteful choice.

[NNN0LHI]

76. Iraq did capitulate 100% and they still got everything you just described

Do you think Iran didn't notice that?

Don

[Daftly]

85. No, Saddam was a fool.

Worse still, a fool with a history and bad reputation. He bluffed the WMD card too long. He should never have kicked out the UN inspectors. Had he complied completely with the UN, the US would have had no grounds (even flimsy ones) for invasion.

If Iran stands alone, they will go down quickly. That may be the honorable choice, but I feel badly for the population.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eggman67]

107. That's uncalled for n/t

[leftchick]

151. repuke myth number 1,463

Saddam did not kick the UN inspectors out. And remember who did kick them out in March 2003. King george, so he could get his war on.

[davekriss]

177. Daftly, Saddam never kicked the inspectors out...

...that is a neocon meme. We ordered them out ahead of our bombing campaign. Saddam balked at having them back in, claiming that some (and this turned out to be true) were CIA agents obtaining strategic targeting information for the U.S. military. But that was back in 1998.

Saddam again, in 2002-2003 and with full transparancy, let inspectors back in. Bush and company rushed them out because they knew no WMD would be found and that conclusion would remove their main propaganda thrust in their program to manufacture consent for war. The war itself is pure neo-imperialism, protecting and advancing long-term U.S. commercial interests and nothing more.

Our armies, the federal government, has as its first mission securing markets, protecting the flow of natural resources, and destroying alternate examples (i.e., nations that opt out of the neo-imperial hierarchy imposed by U.S. hegemony). Iran knows it is target #3 in the Brzenzki-conceived Grand Game and that no amount of transparency will ward off attack if Bush finds a way.

As for other nations rallying around Iran: Note that the U.S. spends more on its military than (approximately) the next 38 nations combined. The world was able to defeat the imperialism of the Third Reich because, as of then, no such seemingly insurmountable imbalance existed. Yet it still took a world war. To directly confront the U.S. now means an unbeliveably high degree of global union and cooperation, war of immense proportion, and utter destruction of global economies. Stopping the U.S. by military force would come at a staggeringly high price.

Direct confrontation means world war; world war is not in the world's interests. With Afganistan and Iraq, the global political class concluded the cost to impede was too great. However, this oil region will become of hyper-critical importance as we skate down the back-slope of Hubbert's Peak. It's conceivable, as the US continues its imperial adventure, that the world might change its mind. Major war is possible.

However, I think what will happen first are political and economic attempts to isolate and weaken the U.S. Non-cooperation in the economic sphere, for example, in an attempt to further weaken the dollar (which is why enforcing the pricing of oil in dollars is so important). The attempts will be engineered to raise economic misery in the U.S. in order to stimulate upheaval in domestic politics that lead to a ousting of the neo-con virus from the body politic. For Joe Sixpack and Mary Middleclass, times will grow harder and more uncertain. Meanwhile, for Iraqi, Afghani, and Iranian citizens, they will plunge further into nightmare.

"May you live in interesting times," goes the Confuscian curse. Unfortunately we live in very interesting times indeed.


On edit: I see leftchick beat me to it, refuting the meme.

[Daftly]

197. He kicked them out years before the invasion.

They returned a few months prior to the war. And then we gave them the final boot. He should have complied 100% after he signed the peace treaty after Gulf War I. Bu not doing so until the proverbial last minute, he set himself up for an easy fall.

Iran should not make the same mistake. They should have complied as soon as Iraq fell. The UN would support them if they were maliable. With this line they are easy PR pickings for Bush.

[davekriss]

210. Your facts are wrong, daftly

Saddam did not kick UNSCOM out in 1998, we (the U.S.) asked them to leave just ahead of Operation Desert Fox. Hussein subsequently balked at letting them back in, and he rejected the UN replacement for UNSCOM in 1999 (UNMOVIC). At that point, as Scott Ritter claimed in 2002, at least 95% of Hussein's WMD program was destroyed or dismantled, and what little was left had a short shelf life and (by 2002) was surely rendered harmless. We knew that and invaded Iraq anyway.

[moodforaday]

196. Saddam DIDN'T kick out the inspectors

Where did you get that idea? Bush told the inspectors to leave, just sa they were saying Saddam complied and was cooperating. Or are you just being sarcastic?

[Daftly]

206. Saddam did kick the inspectors out.

He let them back in when he realized his bluff was being called and he thought he would get a last minute reprive. THEN Bush kicked them out and basically said he did not care what the inspectors proved or disproved.

Saddam's folly was not complying 100% with the peace treaty from Gulf War I. That does not mean the invasion was necessary or justified. It means Saddam gave his enemy a flimsy basis to claim he was a danger to other nations.

Iran should not make the same mistake. They should ask the UN inspectors to look at anything and everything to prove they are not building or planning to build nuclear weapons.

Iran should be doing their level best to garner support form other nations. If no other nation is willing to help defend Iran, they will be fighting a futile battle.

[manic expression]

87. The Iranians

would rather die on their feet than live on their knees. They will resist, as they should. They do, actually, have a great chance of winning in the end. Look at how great the US is doing in Iraq, and Iran is easier to use guerrilla warfare, as well. Even if the Iranian military is obliterated (which will probably happen), partisan warfare will follow, and the US cannot win such a war.

I do not think giving Bush his second Sudetenland will help anything.

[Daftly]

89. I don't think there will be an Iranian occupation.

Boots on the ground will mean a Draft. The Repug party cannot afford that. It will be bombing 24/7 until they either surrender or there is nothing left that is worth bombing. No ammount of insurgency can fight that. If there is no occupation, there can be no rebellion. Just slaughter.

[manic expression]

99. They're far from defenseless

and the Irani Army will be able to inflict enough damage on US forces, either on the ground or in the air, to put up a fight.

[eggman67]

102. I have to agree with Daftly

Don't underestimate the devastatingly awesome machine of destruction that is the US Military. It is truly overwhelming. Iran would stand absolutely no chance, there'd be no need for ground troops as we'd bomb them into oblivion. They're simply overmatched. They'd be fools to invite this knowing full well he'd do it. He's also right that they'd receive zero international support, especially given the EU3 offer that they just turned down.

[manic expression]

105. Don't look at what happened in Iraq

Iran is a whole different thing altogether. Nevermind the fact that Iran's terrain is extremely different, the country is larger. Air strikes would work well (although with much more resistance than what we saw in Iraq), but anything else would be met with a lot of trouble, especially if Iran can break into Iraq (the Shiites might see it as a liberation).

Yes, there is little doubt the US could inflict a lot of damage of Iran (an understatement) out of technological superiority alone, but I feel that it will not be such a cake-walk as Iraq was.

[Mnemosyne]

155. Cakewalk?! Are you fucking serious??

What part of Iraq was a cakewalk? And for whom?
You are repeating wingnut talking points here, don't you think?

The ONLY way the US can take down Iran is with nukes. Their army is huge, approx. 500,000.

[davekriss]

186. In some sense...

...I think Iraq was a near cake-walk if we understand that the objectives were to replace our "permanent" military bases in Saudi Arabia, their establishment being a major objective of the first Gulf War, with permanent military bases in Iraq.

Our bases were becoming a destabilizing embarrassment for the House of Saud so Bush "solved" the problem, he moved them next door. My understanding is that Halliburton is building 4 major impregnable garrisons as well as dozens of ancillary bases. The peace and welfare of the Iraqi people are of no concern to Bush and, at worst (at present), is nothing but a public relations issue to him.

The purpose of the former Saudi bases and the new Iraqi bases is to radiate imperial power in the region in the future, when sliding down the back-slope of Hubbert's Peak. These are the first of many resource wars we will witness in the decades ahead.

The purpose of this "imperial power", if not obvious, is to secure and control future flows of oil and maintain current dollar hegemony. The Iraq War was a strategic forward move; not a reaction to an imminent threat (except the threat to the dollar). WMD, as Wolfowitz implied, was simply what they chose to use to manufacture consent for war. (It only half worked as millions of us were out on the streets on Febuary 15, 2003 -- our political class, however, utterly failed us, revealing how little we factor in when decisions are made and to whom our politicians are really beholden.)

[Mnemosyne]

199. I've reconsidered "cakewalk" after the descriptions

given of it by you and manic. I'm sure that * does consider it just "a public relations issue" with the beautiful sense of compassion he holds. Those new bases give the imperialists a stranglehold in the ME and they will never let it go after coming so far. No matter what loss of life it involves.

We have got to put them behind bars, soon. Hopefully that will at least slow them down if not stop them completely. Something has got to work or we're pretty much doomed. imo

Thanks for the explanation.

[manic expression]

187. The invasion, not the occupation....

(on edit) The invasion of Iraq was pretty much a case of a stronger military slaughtering a hopeless opposing force. Although there were some very serious blunders by the military and the strategic command, the US was VERY lucky this didn't come to anything due to the fact that US forces pretty much didn't face too much resistance during the initial invasion.

That part of the war was perhaps a mirage, a hallucination...the occupation and guerrilla war was always the undoing of our "glorious" military. We, in reality, lost the war when we went in. Misled thoughts of grandeur were certainly swept aside once Iraqis started to fight against the illegal foreign invasion. Another thing is that we have never had control of the country.

It's kind of like saying the German invasion of Russia was a cakewalk...until Stalingrad (which it was).

By the way, "cakewalk" was a bad word to use...I prefer "unjustified massacre of virtually defenseless people" better, as it is infinitely more accurate.

[Mnemosyne]

198. Thanks for the clarification, thought you were a bit nuts! lol

And I like your description "unjustified massacre of virtually defenseless people" very much. I also call it a massacre.

[alfredo]

174. The reason the initial invasion was a cakewalk was

because the Iraqis didn't want to face us in the open. They knew they'd get their asses handed to them fighting on our terms. They collapsed into the cities to fight an urban guerrilla war. Very smart of them.

Iran has another ace in the hole. They can close down the straits of Hormuz, cutting off access to the Persian gulf. If we wanted to stand any chance for success we would have to seize the coast line along that pinch point.

[Eloriel]

54. To be FAIR to Bush or anyone in his administration?

FAIR to them?

Puh-leez. Would you have wanted to be FAIR to Hitler too?

Are you not aware that Iran has no nuclear weapons?

I'm hoping one of these threads has that info in it (forgive me for not doing the research required beyond posting them):

The Iranian Nightmare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4310055&mesg_id=4310055
Link: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

Three extremely important threads on Iran nukes & the Bush agenda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4252778

JASON LEOPOLD: Halliburton Sold Iranian Co Key Nuclear Parts, Sources Say
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1681983
Link: http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=919

Scary speculation about nukes and war with Iran:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4269177
Link: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/8/5/75921/96679/106#106

Juan Cole absolutely nails the "shaped charges from Iran" news!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4268043
Link: http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-cant.html

[Carni]

14. Are there really adults dumb enough to believe anything this asshole says?

Let's see...he has pretty much lied about everything he has ever proposed during the four and a half years he has been in office and even more amazing is the fact that he has been caught doing it repeatedly. How many times has this man been outed as a liar even on MSM and yet people are STILL stupid enough to believe him?
Is it me????

[the old gringo]

15. I think so...

this is from my blog: www.antichimp.com; go visit it :)

On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said some insurgent weapons are entering Iraq from Iran, although it's unclear whether they were coming from elements of the Iranian government or from other parties.

Yesterday, Britain formally protested to Iran over its growing interference in Iraq's internal affairs, citing the smuggling of sophisticated explosives that threaten to send coalition casualties soaring.

What exactly were these "sophisticated explosives"? According to Iraq's Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, this is what happened:

Iraqi security forces opened fire on a group of men carrying boxes near the Iranian border. The men dropped the boxes and fled back into Iranian territory. Inside the boxes were dynamite sticks with some wires.

"This is all that happened at the border and was very much exaggerated," Jabr said.

Rumsfeld, who has accused Iran of smuggling "deadly 'shaped' charges" to Iraq's insurgents, commented:

"It's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border... ultimately, it's a problem for Iran."

Asked if that amounted to an implied threat, Mr Rumsfeld said: "I don't imply threats. You know that."

Hmm. Let's see, the last time Rumsfeld didn't imply any threats, what happened... oh yeah, we invaded Iraq.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Bush administration is starting to lay the groundwork for attacking Iran, much as they did with their misinformation campaign prior to the Iraq war. Watch the news in the weeks ahead, and see if there aren't more bellicose statements aimed at Iran from the U.S. and Britain.

Something else to consider: given the strain our military is under currently, any "successful" attack on Iran would almost certainly consist of an enormous air campaign on nuclear reactors, enrichment facilities, and other military targets, with conventional bunker-buster bombs, but also with tactical nuclear weapons. It's a scenario that the government has war-gamed extensively for years.

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong, paranoid, delusional... I don't really believe that it will come to that, but I do believe, given the right circumstances, given all the puzzle pieces falling into place, that the Neocons would be happy to have an excuse to pursue such a tragic course.

[arewenotdemo]

214. Unhelpful???? Why shouldn't they be?

God I hate that Nazi.

[deadparrot]

17. I feel a draft...

get me out of this country now. I turned 18 at the absolute wrong time.

My mom freaks out daily for fear that my brother or I will be drafted. :(

[Daftly]

66. A draft is too politically damaging.

There will however be a significant airborne invasion.

[Daphne08]

118. Like your mother, I also have two sons,

so I understand her fears since they are mine as well.

[gratuitous]

19. "Force is the last option"?

Well, he was probably talking to some slavering butthead from Israeli television. I'd like to think that if he was talking to a real journalist, the interviewer would have laughed in his monkey face. Or punched it.

But unless Stupidhead is willing to bring back the draft or use nuclear weapons again, there's very little force he can bring to bear on Iran, and they know it as well as anyone.

[fshrink]

21. In a decent world,

this individual would be sent in the forensic unit of a State hospital.

[kestrel91316]

204. Nah, Reagan closed them all (here in CA at least)

[Talismom]

22. I'm ready to do what it takes to get rid of these thugs! If I have

to get arrested to save my kids and country, I'm ready! I'm furious!

[blueintenn]

49. no doubt

Down with GW and the war-mongering neo-cons! If we survive the next few years we will be lucky indeed...

:scared:

[wakeme2008]

24. Sunburn missles and subs

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310505.shtml

IMHO this would be a large Navy lost if we attack Iran.


Iran Sub With Exocet Missiles


Sunburn Missle..

[Daftly]

67. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Remember how everyone said that invading Iraq and Afghanistan would not go smoothly. There were a billion scenarios of how we would get our backsides kicked. None of them materialized. The insurgency during the occupation is a different matter. The invasions themselves could not have gone more smoothly for the military.

I would not hang my hat on one type of missile or a few subs. In a nation that spends so much money on the military, something would be planned to counter the two threats. During the planning stages, both items would be accounted for by the military.

[wakeme2008]

75. Wrong

Iran is a very big military thread and has been building up. They are ready for Bush's little games.

[Daftly]

84. No doubt that they have been building....

up as best they can but they are simply outclassed in the technology department. I hope I'm wrong and the defense department knows things could go badly. That is the only way this will not happen. Neither of us is privy to what the DOD has in their toy box. With billions to play with I doubt there is much Iran culd do to defend herself without nuclear capabilities.

I just doubt very highly that they have a ghost of a chance against the US Airforce and Navy coordinating continuous air strikes. The size of their army has no bearing as it can be dismantled from the air before it can cross very far into Iraq.

[wakeme2008]

90. What world do you live in

Iran has a strong well equipped Army/Navy/AirForce. All they would have to do is take out ONE carrier, and they have won.

[Daftly]

93. Obviously, not the same one you do.

Before Gulf Invasion I, Iraq had an army, navy and air force. (Granted not much navy.) That didn't take too long to take apart. I think you are practicing wishful thinking. The US air force can now be based in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if (and I doubt it) Iran could sink a carrier. Iran would have to be exceptionally lucky to win the air or sea battle. Only if they could win those two would an invasion by their army be feasible.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think Iranian military strength is the reason there has not yet been an attack. If that is the reason the US has not yet attacked then there will be no invasion.

All that is lacking for the attack is a premise and some PR. Both of which are in the mix.

[VegasWolf]

113. For the record Wakeme, I completely agree with you! nt

[Stand and Fight]

25. The parallels are too disturbing to dismiss.

The fact of that matter is this:

What are we going to do about it? If we choose to do nothing about it, when is it going to happen and how is it going to happen?

Iraq was believed to end up a cake-walk, and it has turned into chaos.
Iran is not going to go that route. This wil be worse than a quagmire. This will be wholesale zealotry and murder. This could be the beginning of the end.

[kwolf68]

26. I cant see it happening

I know virtually nothing is out of the realm of possibility with this band of thugs and ghouls, but our military forces are already strapped to their bare minimums, we have now buried around 2000 soldiers, our nation is awash in uncontrollable debt, the American people are now at their wits end with this attack, and I forgot the world still f*cking hates us.

I see no plausible way in which the NeoCons can sell an invasion of Iran to the American people. I’m sure they want it. No doubts about that, but I can’t see this happening. If they do, the past and most recent protests will look like a pro-war love fest compared to what will happen in the streets if DimSon invades Iran. If we invade Iran every America will have an even bigger target on their head. This nutjob pResident is putting us all at risk.

The more I think about it, the more I am starting to believe that the man should be in prison.

[the old gringo]

29. but...

You are right, our military is stretched thin. But a massive air campaign could be accomplished (that only takes more borrowed cash, not so much manpower), and would likely include "tactical" nuclear weapons.

[nookiemonster]

30. Another overriding catalyst event could enable his cause.

Catch my drift?

:mad:

[kwolf68]

42. True

Yep. We get hit and Iran is blamed. A little too nice and tidy for me, but their arrogance certainly reaches extreme proportions.

Again, I will be stupefied if we go into Iran. I thought Chimpy would invade Syria next. I figured his oil masters told him we need a pipeline running from the Caspian right smack dab through the middle east.

Syria has to be “neutralized” before this pipeline is erected. Iran was back burner stuff I thought. I figured President Jeb Bush would invade them in 209. <<< J/K….We’ll vote these bastards out (I hope)

[manic expression]

88. Umm....

if Iran is attacked/invaded, Syria *may* attack the US forces. The Neo-Con's plan to control everything from Afghanistan to Syria may materialize.

Just a thought.

[kwolf68]

104. umm back at you

I think you are onto something. We can't just keep attacking and attacking. Somehow we must provoke an invasion/attack against us.

You can rest assured the Ghouls running this government would LOVE for Iran and/or Syria to engage us. They manufactured a bullshit reason to invade Iraq...Hell, if someone in Syria throws a paper airplane and it lands in Iraq somehow, Shrub will have us on the march.

[shanti]

51. and that is THE plan.

according to cheney.

[durablend]

34. "Selling an invasion of Iran"

Doesn't make a shred of difference...what Georgie wants, Georgie gets...damn the people, damn the polls.

[liberalmike27]

172. Well

Debt never stopped any of the other empirical powers in the past. The Dutch, the Portugese, Romans, the British.

[yorkiemommie1]

27. and what can we expect of the media and the Dems???

more of the same?

Complicity and cowardice save for the precious few?


edited to say I am going to email my senators right now.

Boxer and Feinstein.

[daleo]

31. Seen this movie.

"All options are on the table."
"There are no plans on my desk."
Then war.

[Art_from_Ark]

35. Dick and George's Not-So-Excellent Adventure II

:puke:

[VegasWolf]

33. Bush is not really stupid enough to think the the world's powers

like China, Russia, etc. are going to sit back and let Bush use
nuklar weapons.

[Daftly]

68. No, but they will allow tons of conventional bombs.

No one has the political will power to really get involved and stand up to the bully. They see it as mutually assured destruction. Compared to the destruction of Iran, Iran is nothing.

Their point of view may very well be that he will be gone in 3 years. How much damage can he really do. Pragmatism and practicality over confrontation.

[VegasWolf]

103. Yes, but where is the money to fuel Bush's wet dreams? How

many more trillions can he eek out of this beleaguered economy
before destroying. Not much I bet!

[Daftly]

108. Perhaps, but the economy is the least of his cares.

Here is the completely wrong headed mindset.

Start a war. Order huge no bid contracts form Halliburton, Lockheed, Raytheon, and others. Use all the weapons in storage. Use the weapons as they roll off the assembly line. Eventually stop bombing but continue manufacturing until the surplus is rebuilt and redoubled. In the mean time, because most military suppliers are still mostly American, these companies hire more workers. Economies in the areas with these corporations grow. This growth brings more taxes, which we can spend on the next invasion.

There are many many problems with the theory, but again guess who does not care. For example, that money could be spent on education, health care, and other domestic services which would achieve the same outcome without killing people. In fact, it would save some lives.

[VegasWolf]

111. I think we already seeing the failure of war time economics. He simply

can afford no more. It's all over. All of my Republican friends at
the Country Club have fire in their eyes every time the name Bush is mentioned. Everybody is losing money. Sure we offset by playing the oil stocks and futures, but we all know that game has to stop.

But hey, we all have our own opinions! I'm doing what I need to
preserve my capital. You believe what you want.

[Daftly]

112. I don't agree with it....

I just think he does because the pupetmasters preach it to him.

[jpak]

37. Yo Chimp!

What's more of a threat to this county...

Iran's "peaceful" nuclear fuel program

or

$100+ a barrel oil (especially this winter).

Your call asshole...

[Nothing Without Hope]

43. I recommend reading the opening post and other links in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4252778
Thread title: Three extremely important threads on Iran nukes & the Bush agenda

This will show you what is going on now and who is behind it. It's very, very scary. And, as the first link in that thread shows, the best available intelligence, the NIE on Iran (which was leaked to the Wash Post), shows that Iran is at least 10 years from being able to build a nuclear bomb.

Of course, people like neocon mouthpiece and SwiftBoat Liar book writer Jerome Corsi, are saying that Iran has nukes NOW and we have to invade them to prevent mushroom clouds. The hawk faction of the Israeli government wants has and does want "regime change" in Iran even more than they wanted it in Iraq. And they have huge pull in Washington. And this has been Cheney's agenda all along.

My great fear is that they will engineer an domestic attack like 9/11 and that this will be used as an excuse for invasion, possibly nuclear, of Iran. Indeed, according to an article in the American Conservative, Cheney has made it official policy that if there is a domestic terrorist attack, Iran will be invaded - this in spite of lack of evidence that Iran might be responsible:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/020805nukeiran.htm

[LibertyorDeath]

50. US war with Iran has already begun

By Scott Ritter


Thursday 23 June 2005, 12:21 Makka Time, 9:21 GMT


"The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.



The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations."

More
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

[Mnemosyne]

156. Thank you, I thought I remembered reading

that they were there already, but couldn't remember where.

Iraq, redeux.

God help them, and us.

V

[LibertyorDeath]

52. Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran

Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.

That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.

Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy'.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-31.htm

[Gregorian]

53. Another nonimminent threat. GET OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

Come out with your hands up. Traitors!

[illflem]

55. What's the big deal

since the experts say Iran is at least ten years off for producing a bomb?
A lot can change in ten years.

[Miss Chybil]

56. NO! It ain't going to happen.

No more, you little, fucking crazed, chickenhawk bastard. No more.

[Maggie_May]

57. This is been the plan along

They will go into Iran they just don't know how to get to those underground nuke plants. Iran isn't as dumb as Iraq.

[Daftly]

69. Bunker Busting Nukes. N/T

[Julius Civitatus]

58. He's itching to use those cool new tactical nukes

He gets a boner just thinking of all the "dis-truk-shun" he may unleash with his new toys.

[LibertyorDeath]

59. THE COMING WARS

THE COMING WARS
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt.

More

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[Daftly]

72. I always thought the CIA...

was in the business of protecting American interests by gathering intelligence on foreign countries (spying). My view of them has always been that they are the spying branch of the military. Why else would they exist except to facilitate American success in any wars that we may be involved in.

In other words, What's new?

[LibertyorDeath]

74. Well they do a hell of a lot more than that

"protecting American interests by gathering intelligence on foreign countries"

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm

Support for foreign dictators

The activities of the CIA have caused considerable political controversy both in the United States and in other countries, often nominally friendly to the United States, where the agency has operated (or been alleged to.) Particularly during the Cold War, the CIA supported various dictators, including the infamous Augusto Pinochet, who have been friendly to perceived U.S. geopolitical interests (namely anti-Communism), sometimes over democratically-elected governments.

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest blunders is the CIA involvement in equipping and training Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion of the country. Many of the Mujahedeen trained by the CIA later joined Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist organization. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter, has discussed U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in several publications.

The CIA facilitated the so-called Reagan Doctrine, channelling weapons and other support (in addition to the Mujahedeen and the Contras) to Jonas Savimbi's UNITA rebel movement in Angola in response to Cuban military support for the MPLA, thus turning an otherwise low-profile African civil war into one of the larger battlegrounds of the Cold War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=cia+timeline&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=cia+death+squads&btnG=Search&meta=


THE FRIENDLY DICTATORS
Meet the Friendly Dictators - three dozen* of America's most embarrassing "friends", a cunning crew of tyrants and corrupt puppet-presidents who have been rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to U.S. interests.

Friendly Dictators often rise to power through bloody CIA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other U.S. agencies.

General Jorge Rafael Videla, President of ARGENTINA
Colonel Hugo Banzer, President of BOLIVIA
General Humberto Branco, President of BRAZIL
Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of BRUNEI
General Augusto Pinochet, President of CHILE
Fulgencio Batista, President of CUBA
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, President of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, General of EL SALVADOR
Alfredo Cristiani, President of EL SALVADOR
Halie Selassie, Emperor of ETHIOPIA
General Sitiveni Rabuka, Commander, Armed Forces of FIJI
Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of GERMANY
George Papadopoulos, Prime Minister of GREECE
General Efrain Rios Mont, President of GUATEMALA
Vinicio Cerezo, President of GUATEMALA
François & Jean Claude Duvalier, Presidents-for-Life of HAITI
Roberto Suazo Cordova, President of HONDURAS
General Suharto, President of INDONESIA
Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, Shah of IRAN, King of Kings
General Samuel Doe, President of LIBERIA
Hussan II, King of MOROCCO
Anastasio Somoza, Sr. And Jr., Presidents of NICARAGUA
Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, President of PAKISTAN
General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Defense forces, PANAMA
Alfredo Stroessner, President-for-Life of PARAGUAY
Ferdinand Marcos, President of the PHILIPPINES
Antonio De Oliveira Salazar, Prime Minister of PORTUGAL
Ian Smith, Prime Minister of RHODESIA
P. W. Botha, President of SOUTH AFRICA
Park Chung Hee, President of SOUTH KOREA
Ngo Dinh Diem, President of SOUTH VIET NAM
General Francisco Franco, President of SPAIN
Chiang Kai-Shek, President of TAIWAN
Turgut Ozal, Prime Minister of TURKEY

[Daftly]

86. Oh, yes, that is quite true...

but hasn't it at least been with the intention, or at least under the guise of promoting US interests?

[LibertyorDeath]

61. From Stan Goff's exceptional analysis THE GLOBAL BATTLEFIELD

note SHDCS = “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support"


8/10/2005
THE GLOBAL BATTLEFIELD
Filed under: General, Imperialism, Military, Repression & Resistance — Stan @ 7:23 am

THE GLOBAL BATTLEFIELD - WE ARE STANDING ON IT

The Evolution of the Bush-Rumsfeld War Doctrine - Roadmap to Martial Law



In their own subdued roundabout manner of Washington intrigue, the generals leaked the story that the US has lost the capability to execute the so-called two-war doctrine. They may only intuit the implications - implications that go far, far beyond the concern they have for how Rumsfeld and his whiz-kids have ripped up and wasted the institution to which they devoted their entire lives.

And they may understand the implications of the SHDCS when it is placed in the context of this global impasse. If things are about to get much rougher internationally, then they have to prepare to get a lot rougher domestically.

The US is not attempting to build an empire, but to salvage one in a late state of decay. And the strange collection of rulers currently running amok in the executive branch are not angling to "integrate" any defense of the people. They are building a rampaging nuclear terror state.

And, as Audre Lorde once said, "Your silence will not protect you."


More

http://stangoff.com/index.php?p=173#comments

[shance]

63. Cheney and the PNAC are pulling the next trick.

It is unbelievably embarassing and shameful that this country has allowed crooks to kill innocent people and rob us and the country of Iraq in America's name.

[LibertyorDeath]

77. Asia Times: The Iranian nightmare

Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x146623
Democratic Underground - Asia Times: The Iranian nightmare

By Michael Schwartz

In 1998, neo-conservative theorist Robert Kagan enunciated what would become a foundational belief of Bush administration policy. He asserted, "A successful intervention in Iraq would revolutionize the strategic situation in the Middle East, in ways both tangible and intangible, and all to the benefit of American interests."

Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan's prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the "axis of evil" and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, "By destroying a united Iraq under Hussein ... the US removed the main barrier to Iran's eventual triumph."

(...)

After escaping the Cold War specter of nuclear holocaust, it seems unimaginable that the world would be forced to endure the horror of nuclear war in a regional dispute. However, the record of Bush administration belligerence makes it difficult to imagine America's top leadership giving up the ambition of toppling the Islamic regime in Iran. And yet, given that the conquest of Iraq led the administration unexpectedly down strange Iranian paths, who knows where future Washington plans and dreams are likely to lead - perhaps to destruction, certainly to bitter ironies of every sort.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

[sintax]

83. Superb Article

In Dick Cheney's contingency plan the bombing of Iran is a given if there is another 9-11 type attack on US.

Someone attacks- Bomb Iran

Of course it is rather obvious how these "attacks" would come about. These people are psycopaths. They want it all and to kill everything they cannot control.

[leftchick]

157. thisis just fucking scary....

and cheney is just insane enough to do it...

<snip>

Recently, former Central Intelligence Agency official Philip Giraldi asserted in the American Conservative magazine that, as of late summer 2005, the Pentagon, "under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office" was "drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan mandates a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

The breadth and depth of the assault, according to Giraldi's Air Force sources, would be quite striking: "Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option." Since many targets are in populated areas, the havoc and destruction following such an attack would, in all likelihood, be unrivaled by anything since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[LibertyorDeath]

190. It sure as hell is

"this is just fucking scary...."


Your sig pic is great btw :)

[yasmina27]

78. It's Deja Vu all over again!

I've already offered my wardrobe to my draft-age nephews...

[sintax]

79. He's a F*CKIN' wind up doll and schizoid psycopath

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.


"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

[sintax]

80. Why Iran Will Lead to World War 3

Why Iran will lead to World War 3

by Mike Whitney

August 9, 2005

"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News 

The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war. 

Sound familiar? 

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple. 

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack. 

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&...

[LibertyorDeath]

91. Thanx sintax

Wonder if the MSM is going to Cheer this one on.

They helped create this monster & now he wants fed.

[Megahurtz]

81. Is there just NO stopping this Maniac?

He's trying to get us ALL killed!:nuke:

[agincourt]

94. The only reason for no war,

is that Russia and China will not stay neutral. Russian and Chinese arms will be furnished, which will make it different then Iraq.

[Daftly]

98. Again, I hope you are right but...

There were so many times before Iraq or Afghanistan that people said it'll never happen or it'll go poorly because of this that and the other. Those things either did not materialize, or had little impact. The only thing that has materialized was a strong insurgency in Iraq.

The other question would be the level of involvement by China and Russia. If it is only small arms it will have little impact. I doubt they will not supply tanks, aircraft, or even high tech anti-aircraft weapons.

In fact I would not be surprised if Russia is bought off by the misadministration by promising not to condemn any actions taken in Chechnya and other republics.

No, the only thing that will stop or slow the invasion is a united coalition of nations who are willing to defend Iranian sovereignty. I don't foresee that.

[IndianaGreen]

95. How many more sons and daughters will die for your wars, Mr. Bush?

Why don't you send Jenna and Barbara to your next war, with you leading the charge? It is very easy to be "resolute" when your ass is not the one getting shot.

[LibertyorDeath]

96. Backlash Builds Against Cheney's 'Guns of August'

katty Donating Member (577 posts) Fri Aug-12-05 04:28 PM
Original message
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x146687

Backlash Builds Against Cheney's 'Guns of August'

continue at:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3232vs_cheney_war...

This article appears in the August 12, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Backlash Builds Against
Cheney's `Guns of August'
by Jeffrey Steinberg

As millions of copies of Lyndon LaRouche's July 27 "Cheney's Guns of August" statement circulate worldwide (see www.larouchepac.com ), a Washington policy brawl has erupted into public view, over the Bush Administration's now-confirmed contingency plans to stage a pre-emptive military strike against Iran—possibly using nuclear weapons. The report that Vice President Dick Cheney had tasked the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to develop military contingencies for a massive aerial bombardment campaign against Iran, in the event of a new 9/11 attack, was first revealed in The American Conservative magazine's Aug. 1 edition. The story highlighted the likely use of nuclear weapons, and the widespread military opposition to the pre-emptive nuclear war scheme.

Since that initial story by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, this news service has confirmed the accuracy of the report from a significant number of horrified U.S. government officials—from Senators on both sides of the aisle, to military officers, diplomats, and spies. One former U.S. ambassador in the Persian Gulf reported that he had received angry reports from officials of the Central Command (CENTCOM), who have been tasked as part of the contingency planning.

Another military source suggested that there are probably pre-positioned tactical nuclear weapons at the U.S. military base at Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, under the new military reorganization, which created a "Global Strike" plan for rapid, massive assaults anywhere on the planet.

The bottom line: Vice President Cheney, the architect of the pre-emptive nuclear attack plan, has gone stark raving mad, and is prepared to bring the world to the brink of chaos, before he is driven from power. Democratic Party figure Lyndon LaRouche describes Cheney's state of mind as "like Hitler in the bunker."

[sintax]

109. The LaRouchians are wingnuts

overall, maybe so am I "In These Times", but Jeffrey Steinberg has wriiten numerous excellent articles documenting Dick Cheney's pathological life and details many of Cheney's wicked activities. Also the Larouchers have really brought the legacy of Leo Strauss to light. The Strausscons are very dangerous and live in an amoral universe.

[progressivebydesign]

97. One needs only read the PNAC papers to know that Iran or Syria was next.

None of us here are surprised, are we? We've been predicting this, based upon the roadmap that PNAC has provided. It was either Syria or Iran. Bush is a dimwit being used by the neocons to take over the World.. for oil, naturally. How much fucking money do those people need? It's not about religion, but they use the religious to further their aims.

[Deja Q]

100. Just how are we a free country when everything's for sale? Also,

As to free societies? Said from the the leader of one that he makes less and less free each day.

[antonialee839]

110. Has anyone on earth been able to get a message to

George's planet regarding troop levels, or the fact that these people have done nothing to us? Is this America, or some crazy nightmare I'm having?

[Mnemosyne]

158. I am afraid it IS a crazy waking nightmare antonialee,

and many of us are having the same one.
It is truly frightening.
V

[cambie]

114. It will seem like the only reasonable action,

when the poor oppressed freedom fighters of "Ahwaz" call for our help against the evil Iranians. How could we stand by and do nothing! You haven't heard of them yet but you will. Also happens that most of Iran's oil is there.

[burrowowl]

115. Unless

he Icy Bowel Movements them, I don't see with no troops how he is going to do anything.
And if he does ICBM them, I think the rest of the world will take such a vengence against the U$ of A that the U$ of A won't have time to see their heads spin.

[Daftly]

116. How about if he just uses cruise missiles, B2s, and other air power. N/T

[burrowowl]

117. The World will still be

pissed and decide to live without the U$ of A.
China will either retaliate or call in our debt ...
The only thing that might save the U$ is that our debt is great and others don' want to write it off, but who says that others can write it off and keep on going?

[Daftly]

119. Doubt it. No one has the balls to stand up. N/t

[Kool Kitty]

120. I believe that the proposal that Cheney had drawn up

is about using nuclear and conventional weapons. If they go over to Iran and use nuclear weapons, I would wager that the rest of the world would object MOST strenuously to it. How about if he just uses cruise missiles, B2s, and other air power? I don't think the rest of the world would take kindly to it at all. They don't have to be on Iran's side to object, they just have to be against what this administration is doing.

[Daftly]

208. Objection alone is worthless.

* only responds to action. If no one is willing to lay it on the line, their words will be ignored.

[Kool Kitty]

212. If Bush is stupid enough to start throwing nukes around,

I think that there would be a lot of action, especially from the countries that might be in the fallout path.

[Nostradamus]

121. Richard III of the 21st Century

Check out the wonderful 1955 Olivier version of Richard III and you will see it all there - the fake charm, the lies, the manipulation and the trail of destroyed lives and chances leading to power in a superb allegory that echoes the evil and destructive power that is the modern republican party and their chickenhawk elite.

[not systems]

122. Bush hints at military option for Iran

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16245680%255E1702,00.html

13aug05

US President George W Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over the Islamic republic's resumption of nuclear activities, in an interview with Israeli television.

...

"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

Bush was speaking from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to a reporter from Israeli public television. The Jewish state has accused Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and believes it is the prime target of the alleged arms program.

...

Israel has been prodding Washington to adopt a tough stance on Iran and charged that Iran resumed its uranium conversion activities because it had sensed the "weakness" of the international community.

"Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior official from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said on Tuesday.

Israel itself is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East.

[wli]

123. who ever doubted it, esp. with the Iranian oil bourse coming?

These clowns are transparent as Hell.

[radfringe]

149. ohhhhh...so that's why he can't meet with Cindy

tooo busy preparing the "spin" for "NEW PRODUCT ROLLOUT"

If you liked IRAQ-the Invasion -- you'll love IRAN-The Invasion part 2 -- where there are no ridiculous plans on his desk

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/gen.war.on.terror/">"I have no war plans on my desk," Bush said.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1666314,00.html">"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous" - Bush said

[serryjw]

124. OMG, he is going to try and sell this Bushit again?

"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added."

[tmooses]

125. These people are fucking crazy. They act like world politics is like a

schoolyard playground. "Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior official from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said on Tuesday. "

How many innocent lives do you have to take just so some "senior official" thinks you have a spine.

[cssmall]

126. When did we become the Israelites' watchdogs?

I mean, we take out Iraq and next Iran? Then Syria, Lybia and Jordan because they are building centrifuges. Fuck this, if Yasser Arafat is a terrorist, then the majority of the prime ministers of Israel are as well (no, I'm not stereotyping people of Jewish descent, just the leaders of the state).

[Lefty48197]

135. I think it was when they started that war with the Philistinians.

.

[cssmall]

138. Oh yeah, the whole Holy Land issue.

We're in a crusade, don't forget. Gotta protect the Holy Land from the hands of the unclean, but doesn't a faction of religion say that the "new" Garden of Eden after the rapture will be in Missouri?

[Mnemosyne]

159. Wait till he gets around to Venezuela. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. yet we still have people who say, what troops

Think nukes and draft

[Daftly]

129. Nope, think many, many bombs.

A draft is political suicide for the party. While the DOD and the neo-cons may want it, the party will not endorse it. There will be a very prolonged bombing campaign against anything that could possibly be construed as a military target.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. nah you will see a draft

mark my words on it, if they can hold off until AFTER the midterm elections... I am almost betting on executive order and the rest of the party blaming bush, he is not electable in '08... and if they declare martial law, then all them niceties and calculations are over

[Daftly]

136. The party would blame Bush....

but the people would blame the party. There is too much power at stake to risk it on a sure political loser.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. yes but the party is not seeing the proles

they truly are not...

[aquart]

142. Zogby asked about a draft in last night's poll.

[Miss Chybil]

146. I think a draft will end all this war, bullshit, unless, they scare the

shit out of the country again. I also read somewhere on here tonight somebody saying they were planning to nuke Iran. You don't need a lot of people to do that. I would think a nuclear strike would provoke the Armaggedon these people have been praying for. To bad they'll (we'll) all be too dead to notice the rapture never comes.

[AndyTiedye]

140. They Will Start Up the Draft Somehow

They really don't care at all what the people think.

[DemInDistress]

128. I don't believe the American people will tolerate

war in Iran under false pretense.It's not the nukes the Bush Crime Family is concerned with its their plan to move from U.S.Dollars to EURO's...saddam stopped selling/trading oil for dollars in 99'/00'.Argentina went off the dollar and unrest and regeime change happened...other oil producing nations are considering EURO-dollars,means big trouble for the USA

[bumblebee1]

130. Invade Iran?

With what army, Mr President? Our military is currently bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Erika]

131. Agreed

Our militay is "spent" W's words are empty.

[Daftly]

137. Only the foot soldiers. The bombing is about to commence, N/T

[DesEtoiles]

133. He must think we are all as stupid as he is

[Lefty48197]

134. Actually, he MEANT to invade Iran the first time

but because of faulty intelligence in his head, he sent the troops to the wrong country. D'oh!

[Erika]

139. Good post!

[The_Casual_Observer]

143. THe US army can adopt the star of david on their uniforms for this one

[Mnemosyne]

160. Amen to that Casual! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

144. Hints?

He's been itching to spread some more his brand of Texas democracy for a while. I really think the country will outright revolt if he even tries it. I also doubt very seriously that the dems in congress would be dumb enough to allow that to happen again. Or at least I'd like to think so.

[wickerwoman]

145. Hey, at least they're being economical

going through all the propaganda from three years ago and just changing one letter. That's probably why they picked Iran instead of Syria.

And 50% of Americans are so fucking stupid they probably don't realize it's a new country.

[ngGale]

147. This whole piece of propaganda is like you said ...

'being economical.' One would think the sheeple could think for themselves, only once FGS. Like the old saying 'here's ya sign.'

[ConcernedCanuk]

148. Israel is NOT the only nuclear power in the Middle East

.
.
.

Ya think all them Murikkkan subs sneaking around the Gulf and the Mediterranean are just equipped with conventional weapons?

Not THIS Canuk

And the bases which hardly ever get any coverage that the Murikkans are furiously building (while Iraq DOESN'T get rebuilt) - ya think there's no nuclear devices and delivery systems there??

And the underground complexes and bunkers that Saddam had, including the underground HIGHWAY between the Airport and Bahgdad that we never hear anything about?

They's full of MUrikkkans and weapons ready to deploy at any ME nation they choose.

There was only a wee blurb or two about the bunkers and highways underground back in 2003, but a dozen or so dead reporters ended that story . .

USS of A is THE newcleear power in the ME

but I realy hope it is never proven,

cuz the only way we'll know,

will be the same way the Japanese found out . .

(sigh)

[Lost4words]

153. Could * really be that f"ing stupid?

[Lost4words]

154. I would like to see them reinstate the DRAFT.

Might wake up the rest of this country.

[IDemo]

161. "all options are on the table"

is a phrase Bush is quite familiar with. He used it in 2002 in press conferences when asked about the possibility of invading Iraq.

I hate to say it, but I think Pickles may be laundering a chimp-sized flightsuit in the near future..

[Gregorian]

162. Let's start a war. What a benevolent idea. But who's going to PAY?

We all know what fun war is. But where's the money going to come from? We've already bankrupted our kid's future. How many generations can we rob in order to have our exciting wars. Seriously, who has the money?

Can you believe we're going into our tenth year with a bush? The horror.

[journalist3072]

163. Bush raises option of using force against Iran

Sat Aug 13, 5:27 AM ET



JERUSALEM (Reuters)- President Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear programme.

"All options are on the table," Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.

Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear programme.


Rest of article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iran_bush_dc

[Triana]

164. PNAC (Iran is next on the list....?) (n/t)

[GetTheRightVote]

165. Chanoller of Germany is against using force & is telling other EU

nations to not be suckered into it either. As he has stated, they have seen it does not work.

:kick:

[journalist3072]

168. True, but...

As we have seen in Iraq, Bushie and his crew could care less about building coalitions before invading other countries. They'll go regardless of whether they have international support or not.

[iamahaingttta]

166. Oh shit!!!

When he says using force is a last resort, you know that means he's GONNA DO IT!

Any day now, any day...

[journalist3072]

170. Exactly! n/t

[Inland]

167. But given the degradation of our military, it's actually off the table. nt

[liberalmike27]

169. Do you think it's a coincidence that Afghanistan and Iraq are

like bookends to Iran? I don't, never have thought that. Iran was the beginning really, of our Empirical meanderings in the middle-east back in 1953. It all went tragically wrong in 1979, and I'm sure the right-wing war-mongering public wants it back. The Nazi right will go right along with doting faces and upthrust hands.

[Maggie_May]

173. Just sent this to Mr Bush

Dear Mr. President,
If you have any intentions of invading Iran for your crazed oil war you are sadly mistaken. I refuse to send my 17 year old and 16 year old into a war that will never end into the Middle East. I know that if we are to attack Iran you will have to reinstate the draft and since we are not a wealthy family you will be taking my son a daughter. I will tell you one thing my son and daughter will not set foot on Middle East soil.

A Concerned Mother.

[TomClash]

178. Bush: All Options Open for Iran Nukes

JERUSALEM - In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.

Bush's statement during an interview on Israeli TV late Friday was unusually harsh. He previously said diplomacy should be used to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program and if that failed then the U.N. Security Council should impose sanctions.

The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders deny that, saying it is only for the generation of electricity.

In the interview, Bush said the United States and Israel "are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran

ALL OPTIONS - does that means Israel or the US would nuke Teheran?

[H5N1]

179. bush just might do it

you know he wants to

[MelissaB]

180. check out what PNAC says about Iran

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4338358

[rodeodance]

181. we MUSSSSST vote these dangerous leaders out -before they

do something really stupid!!!!

[TomClash]

184. Gee, Iran might obtain nuclear weapons

What a surprise!

'em neo-cons are really tinkin!

Why would Iran want nuclear weapons? Well, it is bordered by the American military in Afghanistan and Iraq and Israel has 100 nuclear missiles and (with American assistance) air power to reach Teheran. North Korea wasn't invaded and neither was Pakistan. Guess what those countries have?

[asjr]

182. Shrub gets all huffy and puffy and brave when talking

about Iran and Iraq. But he cowers before a mother whose son he has sent to be killed. I think the whole administration has gone mad with power. If we invade Iran all bets are off as to what will happen next.

[TomClash]

183. Bush is a bully

Cindy Sheehan stood up to him. That's more than I can say for a lot of Democrats.

[Skittles]

215. he is a bully AND a coward

deep down all bullies are cowards

[VegasWolf]

185. Why doesn't Brain just pray away the problem? nt

[sakabatou]

188. "The use of force is the last option for any president."

Except the one we have now! AUGH!

[neweurope]

189. Just some phrases I've snipped from DU the last couple of days:

"They say there's going to be a terrorist attack by september 19th"These words were spoken by my sister, who works for homeland security (as intern) in atlanta.

A new horrific false flag terror attack (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7238) is planned for this month (August 2005),

Lehrman said that other sources had told him all army leave had been cancelled from September 7th onwards, opening the possibility for war to be declared within that time frame.

American Conservative Magazine recently reported that Dick Cheney had given orders to immediately invade Iran after the next terror attack in the US, even if there was no evidence Iran was involved.


recently, one of Byrnes' subordinate commands, Fort Rucker in Alabama, had been told to stand by for an influx of 50,000 military trainees -- a level the base has not seen since the Vietnam War. Byrnes' relief of command came on the heels of the Pentagon announcing that might permit Spanish-language entrance examinations.

Terror drill alert: NORTHCOM/FEMA nuke in August


U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. According to sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran's nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons. The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups.


-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[dave123williams]

191. This guy sure seems to get to last resorts more often than other POTUS's.

Everybody ready for another show at the UN? Maybe they'll have more convincing visual aids this time.

[Ladyinblack]

192. Can he get away with starting another war?

I do not blame Iran after what we did in Iraq. I would be trying to protect my country from this war hungry liar.
If he starts another war, his kids need to be the first to go.

[kitty1]

193. disturbing fact re: nuclear drill scheduled for Aug 17....

in South Carolina. The fact that an important 4 star general who was integral to the upcoming nuclear terror drill was fired recently. General Kevin Byrne. Supposedly it was due to an extra marital affair, but insiders believe it is because he was trying to stop a real nuclear detonation from being piggy backed onto this practice one. Believe me, it is just a matter of time before the neo-cons pull something fast and loose like this. They are desperate right now, and we all know from past experience that these crumbs will stop at nothing get into Iran.

[kestrel91316]

205. My prediction:

During the anti-terrorism exercises next week, there will be a "real" terrorist attack on either SF or LA Harbor via nuke smuggled in by ship (just like their exercises are doing) and Bush will declare martial law to squelch ALL OPPOSITION. No more protests folks, and no speaking against the pResident at all, or they will arrest and disappear you. Then he uses the opportunity to nuke Iran into glass, blaming them for the "terrorist" attack. He then takes control of Iranian oil.

This is my official prediction. I sure as hell hope I am just way too tin-foil-ey these days.

[confludemocrat]

211. This is 2006 election fodder; will time bombing to be 6 mo before gen elct

That's how they work. Democrats better get a handle on their response, strategy on countering what is pure domestic power politics.