“This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason.”

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15582.htm

Cheney’s Revenge


.....

William S. Lind, Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, assures us in his latest article “Iraq Disaster Warning” that “something big’” will happen “between Nov 7 congressional election and Christmas. That could be the long-planned attack on Iran”.

Dr. Elias Akleh supports this theory in his article “War on Iran” providing the worrisome details of the military build-up currently taking place in the Gulf beyond the knowledge of the American people. Akleh states:


“The US and NATO countries had amassed the largest military armada in the Middle East. The US armada consists of carrier Strike Group 12 led by nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, Eisenhower Strike Group—another nuclear powered aircraft carrier with accompanied military vessels and submarines, Expeditionary Strike Group 5 with multiple attack vessels led by aircraft carrier USS Boxer, the Iowa Jima Expeditionary Strike Group, and the US Coast Guard. Canada has sent its anti-submarine HMCS Ottawa frigate to join the American Armada in the Persian Gulf. On October 1the USS Enterprise Striking Group has crossed the Suez Canal to join NATO armada at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

The NATO force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several countries and is lead by Germany. It includes German command naval forces, Italian navy, 2 Spanish warships, 3 Danish warships, 10 Greek warships, 2 Netherlands warships, and French, Belgium, Turkish, and Bulgarian troops in South Lebanon.”

Akleh adds ominously, “This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason.”

Indeed.

[williesgirl]

1. Trying to get another war in prior to impeachment of BOTH criminals

recommended

[davekriss]

10. Recall Bush saying that it's great...

...that we had the recent elections despite the fact that we're at war. That means floating in that tepid jelly that sits atop his shoulders is the thought that somehow cancelling free elections in the U.S. can be justified by war.

I've never really taken seriously the idea that Bush might not leave in 2009, but, hey, who knows?
:shrug:

[On the Road]

17. Thank You for Pointing That Out

I missed that and yes, it is scary.

[treestar]

20. Never thought of that. They could take the position that nothing

can be changed and that the new Congress should not be sworn in yet - and could get the outgoing Congress to legislate that - we are at war, yadda, yadda. Though the people would probably not go for it without being outraged.

The excitement of being at war is gone for most armchair warriors, too.

[niallmac]

2. Admittedly I don't watch TV but if this is true has the American

public been sufficiently wound up by Fox news et al to accept this new
reason to sacrifice their sons and daughters?
My feeling is that there exists no sufficient war hysteria
for another front.

I don't have to start watching TV again do I?

[Wiley50]

3. Yeah, I've been preaching this for awhile

Bush promised to do it before the end of his term.

If he doesn't do it now, the new congress won't let him

Read more at globalresearch.ca

[Subdivisions]

4. Yea, we've been discussing this since September...just search

for "USS Eisenhower" to find relevant threads.

I thought they'd fire that thing with Iran up just before the elections, but I guess they have other plans.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Let's start with this one

If one of our ships in the Eisenhower Battle Group were to be fired upon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2359924


or this one
Bush Will Start War to Try For "Rally Round the Flag", Ships to be SUNK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2320781

maybe this

The coming war against Iran - Part 12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2242746


War Pimp Alert: Charles Krauthammer Calls For Attack on Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2223709

Iran "War Signals"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2222805

Robert Parry: 'The Bushes & the Truth About Iran'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2182503

Pentagon Iran Office Mimics Former Iraq 'Office of Special Plans'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2177610

‘We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now...'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2165337

Navy Told to Block Iran with Submarines (Raw Story)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2166135

Kucinich: The Bush Administration is preparing for war against Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2201129

FUTURE SHOCK -- A Possible Future If Bush Attacks Iran (LONG)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2196504

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2236642

WHY THE IRAN ATTACK MAY BE IMMINENT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2300091

IRAN, IKE (CV-69) & Marines on the move, Adm. Swift posted to Bahrain, -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2301544

More On The Naval Blockade
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2325069

[Subdivisions]

7. Thanks :) It's a lazy Saturday afternoon...

[Ms. Clio]

44. If there is a war on Iran, there will also be a war on us, the American people

Leopolds Ghost's "Future Shock" makes that ominously clear, too.

[angstlessk]

5. The Enterprise and its group returned home to Norfolk last week

so I doubt that is going to happen. Was on the news here. Big happening.

[Subdivisions]

8. Well, in yet another shining testament to our MSM, I did not know that.

In fact, the cited article does indeed include the Enterprise as one of those ships in the area. Guess that demonstrates the validity of that particular article.

USS Enterprise - http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=USS%20Enterprise&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

[Karenina]

9. That was when I conceded that the election

has produced some positive result. I was CERTAIN that if the Repukes maintained their majority, Iran would go up in smoke.

[independentpiney]

11. Germany leading, Greece, Denmark, Belgium, France Turkey..,

Why would all these countries that didn't support the Iraq invasion be secretly in collusion with a Cheney led plan to attack Iran? Anything's possible, but i'd be interested to hear any ideas as to logic of that.

[IsItJustMe]

12. Not sure but it is very difficult for me to see countries like Germany joining the U.S. in such an..

endeavor. For that reason, I would say this report could be erroneous.

[seemslikeadream]

14. U.S., allies practice intercepts in Gulf

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20061029-115609-7004r.htm
U.S., allies practice intercepts in Gulf
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 30, 2006


The United States and five other countries will begin an exercise in the Persian Gulf today simulating the interdiction of a ship carrying nuclear materials to a state of "proliferation concern" -- most likely Iran.
U.S. officials said that Muslim countries will take part for the first time in a Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) exercise, part of Washington's global effort to disrupt traffic in weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

[Selatius]

13. NATO will not join an attack on Iran, imho

The reason other nations like Canada and Germany are in the Indian Ocean is to support ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

These guys are likely not going to attack Iran either:

The NATO force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several countries and is lead by Germany. It includes German command naval forces, Italian navy, 2 Spanish warships, 3 Danish warships, 10 Greek warships, 2 Netherlands warships, and French, Belgium, Turkish, and Bulgarian troops in South Lebanon.”

[Doctor_J]

15. Smirk's answer to every problem is to kill people

Trying to neutralize the upcoming snowstorm of subpoenae. Since the chances of impeachment and prison sentences for all of his cronies looms large, he will likely commence to killing again before the new Congress can take their seats.

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. USS Boxer's USMC...

...component, the 15th MEU (SOC), is going to Al-Anbar province.

[Jcrowley]

18. Need the oil

It is clear that the geopolitics of oil have changed, and this is a point made in Naked Imperialism. In the chapter "U.S. Imperial Ambitions and Iraq" there is a bar graph superimposed on a map of the world showing very visibly the extent to which the oil reserves of the world are concentrated in the Middle East.  There is a lot of discussion today about whether the world has reached or even passed "peak oil" production.  No one really knows the answer; there are still too many unknowns, though the peak oil hypothesis is a plausible one.  What we do know for certain is what the oil industry calls reserve/production ratios (or simply r/p ratios), which give you the number of years before reserves are likely to be exhausted for various oil-producing countries in the world, based on current production levels.  This tells us that with each passing year a larger percentage of the world reserves will be located in the Middle East, since the reserves to production ratios there are far higher.  It is obvious then that control of the Middle East reserves becomes more critical each year if world oil supplies are to be secured.

The United States has long designated the security of world oil reserves as a vital strategic interest, which translates ultimately into U.S. leverage over the production and sale of these reserves, not to mention the profits to be derived from this.  A whole series of foreign policy doctrines -- the Eisenhower doctrine of 50 years ago, the Carter doctrine, the Bush doctrine -- have been principally aimed at the Middle East, and amount to the extension of the Monroe doctrine (which asserted U.S. hegemony in the Americas) to the Middle East.  One of the reasons given by the administration for the Iraq war was to prevent Saddam Hussein from having a "stranglehold" on world oil.  Perhaps this was the closest to an honest reason they gave.

Beyond the larger geopolitical issue of securing the Middle East and its oil for the empire of capital there is the question of who actually exploits the oil and who profits from it.  U.S. and British corporations are now positioned to gain control over the production of, and to reap huge profits from, the Iraqi oil reserves through so-called "production sharing agreements," which will give them rights to the exploitation and sale of the bulk of Iraq oil reserves for decades to come -- even allowing them to book this oil as "assets" in their accounts.  In other words they will have the material equivalent of the old imperial concessions system for oil.  This is apparently the main thrust of a new proposed oil law in Iraq that was written by Washington and London with the help of leading oil corporations, and that, in accordance with an IMF deadline, is supposed to be approved by the Iraqi government by the end of this year.

Defenders of U.S. imperialism in Iraq naturally contend that "It is not all about oil" and try to present the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" slogan of the antiwar movement as unpatriotic and the voice of irrationalism.  They act righteously indignant regarding any suggestion that the United States is planning to loot Iraq's oil wealth.  But it is impossible to deny that much of this conflict is about oil directly.  And indirectly all questions regarding Iraq return in the end to oil, which from a geostrategic standpoint is what makes Iraq so important.  In a recent poll of Iraqis less than 2 percent thought that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to promote democracy in Iraq.  More than three quarters of Iraqis believed that the single most important reason for the invasion was control of Iraqi oil.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/foster171106.html

:hi:

K&R

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Where the hell are these guys going to hide once this is over and

the investigations begin? They are out of control.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

21. Paraguay

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00308.htm

BUSH REPORTED TO HAVE PURCHASED 99,000 ACRES IN PARAGUAY

Why might the president and his family need a 98,840-acre ranch in Paraguay protected by a semi-secret U.S. military base manned by American troops who have been exempted from war-crimes prosecution by the Paraguayan government? - Wonkette

More at link

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. They can't expect to control that base forever.

[pnorman]

22. ...“something big’” will happen “between Nov 7 congressional election and Christmas....

December 7th would be a symbolically appropriate date for the onset of "Shock & Awe II".

pnorman

[Mme. Defarge]

24. I would be more worried about this if

last week's election had not been a landslide on a national scale. They can't imprison the majority of the U.S. population. It's over. Bush and Cheney are toast.

[leveymg]

25. The Enterprise is on its way back to Norfolk

It docked in Lisbon last week for shore leave. If they wanted to attack Iran, it would still be in the region.

Sorry, but we've been hearing a lot of this stuff for months -- it's really just psyops aimed at keeping Iran off-balance while U.S. forces are withdrawn from Iraq.

[OneBlueSky]

26. attacking Iran would be insanity . . . it would also be illegal and immoral . . .

and the Congress damn well better step up and do something to stop it . . .

Democrats in the current Congress should initiate something -- anything -- that will bring this pending disaster to public attention and generate sufficient public pressure to force Bush and his Republican cohorts in Congress to back down . . . before he starts World War III . . .

[TheBaldyMan]

27. Won't happen. n/t

[Perky]

28. Horseshite!!!!!

THe Entgerprise in on its way back to Norfolk.
Many of these thia "armada" is in the mes supporting the buffer ub siuth Lebanon.

But mosy importantly Baker and oppy will not let hime do it and I suspect the militryu wan't nothing to do with it.

You guys were posting this drivel earlier saying that it was going to happen before the election. now it is before convening... then it will be before the SOTU, then Tax day, then memorial day...then just in time for the fourth of July.



Go away.

[seemslikeadream]

29. Please don't tell me to go away

I have every right to be here if I follow the rules. Please don't try and silence people censorship is not nice

[Perky]

31. You are more then welcom to stay and say anything you want

I should not have said that... Nonethless it is still a suppositionin search of credible evidence that does not exist. This is the same sort of logical falacy which led Bush to conclude there "must be" WMD.

[seemslikeadream]

32. Thank you so much for allowing me to stay, can Sy post here too

if he is so inclined? ;)

[Perky]

35. Sy is more than welcome as well

But has he said war with Iran is imminent?

[seemslikeadream]

37. It depends what your definition of imminent is

before leaving office sounds pretty imminent to me.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact

Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

.....


The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, “the goal in Iran is not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran’s nuclear network, there are many who think that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward with the bomb—and of supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his pro-Iran element in Iraq.” (Sadr, who commands a Shiite militia, has religious ties to Iran.)

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.”

[Perky]

End of the administration? Hmm the original post contended it waqs going to happen by xmas

which one is it?

[Perky]

38. End of the administration? Hmm the original post contended it waqs going to happen by xmas

which one is it?

[seemslikeadream]

42. Being informed of what the adminstration is thinking

is what is important here. I don't know WHEN it would happen and being lumped into the "you guys" group is not polite of you. First of all it's not true.

BTW check post #6 I don't see my name in any of those threads

[bloom]

43. This is similar to what the CIA was saying before Iraq, too...

"The Administration’s planning for a militar attack on Iran was made far more complicate earlier this fall by a highly classified draf assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the Whit House’s assumptions about how close Ira might be to building a nuclear bomb. Th C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, o a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons progra running parallel to the civilian operations tha Iran has declared to the International Atomi Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined t comment on this story.

The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found....

The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. “An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we’ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us—and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It’s an analyst’s worst nightmare—for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East.” (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)

According to the Pentagon consultant, “The C.I.A.’s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran’s hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.”

[Ms. Clio]

45. "for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East.”

And thus the neocons will have created the monolithic "Muslim enemy" they have been obsessing about for years.

[leveymg]

36. I want you around here forever,

my good friend. :hi: :kick: :thumbsup:

Who says we always have to agree on everything? That just wouldn't be DU!

[seemslikeadream]

39. Thank you my friend, I just like to be able to read everything

and then judge for myself what to believe and what not to believe. With the attitude some have here I would not be able to do that and neither would you. And just because I post an article does that automatically mean I agree with it? Am I supposed to interject my opinion in every link I submit? I'd like to leave that up to the readers. There are so very many intelligent people here, it's great to get their take on things. That helps me make up my mind. I've learn so much here.

:toast: To free discussion!

[leveymg]

46. To free discussion and nickel beers

Cheers.
:toast:

[seemslikeadream]

30. and please read this from Hersh, I guess he should go away too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2757350

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

[Retired AF Dem]

40. And hopefully my son that is stationed on the Boxer

will be home soon to see his new daughter. (the one that knows how to use a sling)

[Minnesota_Lib]

33. The inclusion of NATO in this makes me highly skeptical. Also...

..I must consider the source.

Red Flag Warning! The Free Congress Foundation (more formally the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, and Free Congress or FCF for short), is a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. founded and led by Paul Weyrich. Paul Weyrich? LOL

These folks are some of the biggest purveyors of the "liberal media" myth.

Red Flag Warning! TheocracyWatch, a project run by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University and critical of much of politically active religious conservatism, says that the Free Congress Foundation has ties to what TheocracyWatch calls the Dominionist movement. As an example of "Dominionism In Action," TheocracyWatch says FCF's manifesto The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."<2> The manifesto is no longer on the FCF website.

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

[cool user name]

34. Hell hath no fury like a Cheney scorned ...

...

[bloom]

41. "Bomb Iran" By Joshua Muravchik, in the LA Times today

"JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

WE MUST bomb Iran.

It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere....


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,2220597.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

blah, blah, blah, war, war, war...



This guy was on Democracy Now the other day. And he was a first class jerk.


It looks like they are trying to get people ready... :nuke:


Edit: link

[oblivious]

48. What a nut case. And to think that a prominent newspaper gives him a pulpit!

[seemslikeadream]

49. I wonder why a prominent newspaper would do that?

:shrug:

Maybe to let people know what they're planning next? :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

47. The thing that gets me about Bush

is that he is always in your face. "Whatcha going to do about it"? type mentality.
After reading some of the posts in this thread, my blood ran cold.
Is this why election fraud didn't occur on a widespread basis? Because when this happens nothing matters anyway? They already have the getaway vehicle in place.
:scared: