War finally?

[freetibet]

http://www.debka.com/

A Polish web portal says this^ portal claims that there will be a war on Iran in like a week's time. Sweeet!(y)

[Bob]

war kicks ass!

[Schmeltz]

a) For anyone to believe, after the utter and abject failure of the Bush administration in Iraq, that expanding conflict in the Middle East is a good thing, is plain and simple proof of total intellectual and moral inadequacy. It's absolutely mind-boggling that anyone could be so shallow and foolish, but there you go.

b) Does anyone else find it really ironic that the Polish guy thinks so highly of warfare?

[yeahwho]

a) For anyone to believe, after the utter and abject failure of the Bush administration in Iraq, that expanding conflict in the Middle East is a good thing, is plain and simple proof of total intellectual and moral inadequacy. It's absolutely mind-boggling that anyone could be so shallow and foolish, but there you go.

b) Does anyone else find it really ironic that the Polish guy thinks so highly of warfare?

c) The democratic congress is going to say "OK", as long as we have a timetable.

[D_Raay]

We are going to war with Iran.

It may be alot more covertly than Iraq, but it's happening.

[chromium05]

Only the other day I stated on here that I had read that the US was planning to go in with air strikes on Friday April 6th at 4am (iran time).

I was pretty much told by all that followed that I was full of isht and my "sources" didn't exist/were isht too.

We'll see.....

But for ufcks sake - W MUST be insane. Who is it whispering directives in his ear now?

Oil companies - kill/overthrow the current regime and install another pro-US puppet government and bleed Iran dry of it's resources / hold China to ransom?

With regards to oil - Iran are/ were about to use the Euro in thier oil trading, just like Iraq. With the dollar so weak the US CAN NOT afford for more countries to drop the dollar.

Aipac on behalf of Israel? Just what is it that the Israeli's have on the US that they can pull these strings so easily?

I find it hard to understand how America has got to the point where this current administration is able to throw billions of dollars into armed conflict when the economy is so weak. I fail to understand why Bush hasn't yet been forced out of power. This is a guy who rewrites laws to give himself the power to veto constitutional laws and ignore congress' demands and the will of the people. Any other country (ie. Iran, Iraq, North Korea,Zimbabwe etc) whose leaders do the same things come under such relentless verbal attack from the US, are called "evil" regimes that want to eradicate thier citizens freedoms, and are eventually bombed by the US. A US whos administration believe the UN to be useless therefore the US will not go along with any UN sponsored action unless it benefits them, or else it vetoes various resolutions rendering the UN helpless. A US whos president will only allow whitehouse staff to testify behind closed doors, without transcripts and without being under oath. Nothing quite like saying that it's OK to lie just as long as you don't incriminate me.

Erm...hello!?!

Just how far will things go before the entire world realises that it's too late to stop?

[D_Raay]

Schmeltz, weigh in on this one brother, alot of things are going down and I'd like to hear what you think, please.

[War-Lord]

So has this been confirmed that we are going to war with Iran or what?

[roosta]

i hope this war is more entertaining for us arm-chair generals than the iraq one....

[synch]

Reckon they'll make some decent games about it at last?

Or perhaps base the plot of Rambo VI on it?

[yeahwho]

Our military is completely overextended. For this reason I doubt this military move will happen anytime in the immediate future. But escalation is probably being encouraged by our current administration.

PNAC the nonconservative think tank advocated that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world. Permanent military installments in critical regions of the world to protect our interests.

I mention this mindset because 16 key members of PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) were appointed to the Bush administration after he was elected (appointed) in 2000..


I'm sure that Bush is trying to get enough cover so his move into Iran is smoother than the invasion of Iraq. The dilemma is what to do with it once he has it?

Ultimately, I don't think any of us can fully get our hands around how evil and corrupt the Bush administration is.

[Ali]

http://www.debka.com/

A Polish web portal says this^ portal claims that there will be a war on Iran in like a week's time. Sweeet!(y)
What happened to the war on terror?

[Ali]

Only the other day I stated on here that I had read that the US was planning to go in with air strikes on Friday April 6th at 4am (iran time).

I was pretty much told by all that followed that I was full of isht and my "sources" didn't exist/were isht too.

We'll see.....

But for ufcks sake - W MUST be insane. Who is it whispering directives in his ear now?

Oil companies - kill/overthrow the current regime and install another pro-US puppet government and bleed Iran dry of it's resources / hold China to ransom?

With regards to oil - Iran are/ were about to use the Euro in thier oil trading, just like Iraq. With the dollar so weak the US CAN NOT afford for more countries to drop the dollar.

Aipac on behalf of Israel? Just what is it that the Israeli's have on the US that they can pull these strings so easily?

I find it hard to understand how America has got to the point where this current administration is able to throw billions of dollars into armed conflict when the economy is so weak. I fail to understand why Bush hasn't yet been forced out of power. This is a guy who rewrites laws to give himself the power to veto constitutional laws and ignore congress' demands and the will of the people. Any other country (ie. Iran, Iraq, North Korea,Zimbabwe etc) whose leaders do the same things come under such relentless verbal attack from the US, are called "evil" regimes that want to eradicate thier citizens freedoms, and are eventually bombed by the US. A US whos administration believe the UN to be useless therefore the US will not go along with any UN sponsored action unless it benefits them, or else it vetoes various resolutions rendering the UN helpless. A US whos president will only allow whitehouse staff to testify behind closed doors, without transcripts and without being under oath. Nothing quite like saying that it's OK to lie just as long as you don't incriminate me.

Erm...hello!?!

Just how far will things go before the entire world realises that it's too late to stop?
This post just about sums up the entire situation (not just because it says all the same things I normally do).

Read and remember, biatches.

I find it hard to understand how America has got to the point where this current administration is able to throw billions of dollars into armed conflict when the economy is so weak.I'll tell you why, amigro, it's because the US economy is largely based on the manufacture of weapons and the rebuilding of conquered territories using international aid. Everything you eat, wear, drive and otherwise consume is produced elsewhere and China owns you, literally.

War is all you have between you and total economic collapse, attacking Iran was part of the plan long before 9/11 and there's nothing anyone can do to stop Bush and his pals from going ahead.

[yeahwho]

I'll tell you why, amigro, it's because the US economy is largely based on the manufacture of weapons and the rebuilding of conquered territories using international aid. Everything you eat, wear, drive and otherwise consume is produced elsewhere and China owns you, literally.

War is all you have between you and total economic collapse, attacking Iran was part of the plan long before 9/11 and there's nothing anyone can do to stop Bush and his pals from going ahead.

That is a very astute observation. I do not totally agree, the scary part though is I agree more than I disagree.

fuck

[SobaViolence]

sometimes i want them to just nuke the world and be done with it.
fuck they want to. it's horrible, but there is so little from stopping them
then we'll see where their messiah is.

[Schmeltz]

You know, I was a lot more confident in my understanding of this topic before this flap with the Brits. I've thought about this quite a bit lately, but it seems to me that everything is now much less clear.


Our military is completely overextended.


This, to me, remains the most valid point, for multiple reasons. It simply isn't feasible for Bush to launch a full-scale conflict with Iran: the ground forces in the area are already struggling to keep the violence in Iraq down to the vicious level that continues to afflict the country in spite of Bush's troop surge, and couldn't hope to score any kind of lasting success in Iran. And Bush is coming to the end of his term (gods be praised). His approval ratings are pathetic and the GOP establishment has to care about that, even if he doesn't; they saw in November what it means when the public begins to grow weary of interminable wars to no discernible gain and in the few short months since then Bush has come under further fire from two sides - the Dems' war spending bill and the bungled attorney firings. Starting a new war now, after the pattern of the first one, will only lead to more of the same at home, especially when the new opponent is much better armed and more difficult to defeat than the first.

Which leads us to consider the Iranians, who as I mentioned somewhere else haven't really handled this situation very aptly. You certainly can't fault the leadership for their confidence, but Ahmadinejad was also recently chastised with unfavourable election results and large elements of the Iranian populace seem to be losing patience with their government's continued pursuit of policies that are increasingly isolating them from the rest of the world. The hardline stance Ahmadinejad has adopted over these allegedly intrusive British sailors (I say allegedly because so far neither side has managed to conclusively establish exactly what happened that day) is in the same uncompromising vein as his relationship with the IAEA, has further served to inflate an already volatile situation, and it will only yield the same results - a lack of badly needed support from others.

So it seems to me that we're left with two leaders with a history of stubborn attachment to unproductive and irrealistic policies, increasingly detached from their weary and indignant citizens but still unwilling to change course. If they continue on the same paths then it wouldn't surprise me to see the situation escalate even further - maybe even to the point of an American air or missile strike against an Iranian military facility, perhaps justified on the strength of some connection, real or imagined, to insurgent weaponry being used in Iraq, and meant as a shot across the bow rather than the onset of a full-on war. Bush might just be fool enough to make that kind of gamble - but I'm willing to bet that if he does decide to use force against Iran, he'll get more in return than he bargained for, both from Iranians and Americans. Iran's anti-aircraft and offensive missile capacities are much, much more advanced than Saddam's ever were, and if too many American planes are shot out of the sky - if such an operation costs the American military more than it gains the American government, as well it might - then the GOP might as well hand the Presidency to Hillary right now and save their campaign funds for 2012.

I dunno. Before this British sailor thing I would never have bet on any kind of action against Iran. Now I'm much less sure.

[Ali]

I wonder whether it would have made any difference to Iran's prospects if these sailors had never been captured.

Maybe the UN would have said "oh, you didn't apprehend those British sailors, thanks, we won't put sanctions on you".

Somehow I doubt it.

Iran is under pressure. There are hundreds of Iranians in coalition custody, their only crime being that they happened to be in Iraq at the time. If being in Iraq is a crime, then I guess Iran are trying to say that that rule applies to being in Iran.

There doesn't seem to be quite as much interest in the hundreds of Iranian prisoners as there is about these 15 Brits, even though their crimes are the same. Don't the same rules apply?

Iran is making a point. Their methods are questionable, but what have they got to lose? They know they are next on the List, perhaps they have accepted the fact that they are going to be attacked and have made the first move.

[Funkaloyd]

If there were hundreds of Iranian troops in Iraq, there'd be interest.

[Schmeltz]

They know they are next on the List


Overstretched American military sends troops back to Iraq again. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_troops) That list is going to be a long time getting done.

[yeahwho]

U.S. strategy in Iran may have backfired is the headline in todays LATimes newspaper (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-backfire3apr03,0,3611776.story?coll=la-home-headlines).

Pressuring Tehran on its nuclear program seems to have only made the nation more belligerent.

Months of hard-nosed U.S. political and military pressure on Iran may have further radicalized and emboldened the regime, undermining Washington's stated aim of neutralizing the Iranian threat without resorting to war, analysts say.

Elements of Iran's government, painted as a rogue state for its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program, responded forcefully to the U.S.-led challenge, those analysts say. Not only have they sparked an international crisis by capturing the 15 Britons in disputed Persian Gulf waters, and airing alleged confessions on television, they've ramped up security operations in the gulf with war games and missile launches.

The regime has blamed a fear of U.S. airstrikes for its decision to stop disclosing non-required information about its nuclear program, according to a series of memos described by the Associated Press.

What a complete unmitigated fucked up mess the Middle East has become. We voted in a democratic congress and Bush ignores the will of the people and all the while this growing bucket of snakes has overwhelmed millions of people to hate the US. WTF, give it up (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070329/wl_mideast_afp/arabsummitiraqus)! Every corner we turn is more uglier and more hazardous. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.iraq03apr03,0,6825250.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)

[D_Raay]

It wasn't that long ago when the people of Iran held candlelight vigils for us...

[Schmeltz]

Killer piece by Terry Jones in the Guardian - e-mailed to me by my buddy who basically makes me look like Sean Hannity.

Published on Saturday, March 31, 2007 by The Guardian/UK

Call That Humiliation?
No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians Clearly Are a Very Uncivilised Bunch

by Terry Jones

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn’t be able to talk at all. Of course they’d probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn’t be humiliated.

And what’s all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It’s time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That’s one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn’t rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it’s just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What’s more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting “stress positions”, which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It’s all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is “unhappy and stressed”.

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed”. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
www.terry-jones.net

© 2007 The Guardian

[yeahwho]

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn’t be able to talk at all. Of course they’d probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn’t be humiliated.

Terry Jones is brilliant, a breathe of fresh air in a stagnated constipated USA "Bull in a China shop" style diplomacy the media keeps reporting as news worthy.

Terry Jones is onto something here.

Savages indeed. I have the creepy feeling this Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sort of fellow who attends military funerals for soldiers when they die defending his country.

[D_Raay]

You know, on O'Reilly's program the other night, a retired female general (her name escapes me) was making this very point that Jones made. O'Reilly turned that into "you hate your own country" and eventually cut her mic.

He then sold his audience that he knows better than she, and he was being noble showing his audience what evil lurks right here in America (you know, the place that only belongs to him and his audience).

Her job for 29 years was to educate soldiers about the Geneva Conventions...

[Carlos]

nice find Schmeltz... Terry is spot on!!

the hypocracy the west exerts on this globe is overwhelming, it's just a shame that so many people are hoodwinked into thinkning we have some moral high ground.. far too many are brainwashed by our media and governments..

[Carlos]

You know, on O'Reilly's program the other night, a retired female general (her name escapes me) was making this very point that Jones made. O'Reilly turned that into "you hate your own country" and eventually cut her mic.

He then sold his audience that he knows better than she, and he was being noble showing his audience what evil lurks right here in America (you know, the place that only belongs to him and his audience).

Her job for 29 years was to educate soldiers about the Geneva Conventions...

he has his marching orders, and will not go past any bounderies of sense to fullfill them. The guy is clearly one of the most dispicable of slaves of the NWO, I'm sure the Rockerfella's and Murdoch will be giving him a large bonus this year ;)

They are masters of '1984 double' think - just keep repeating blatently untrue things for long enough, and it'll become reality.