As the date for justification fast approaches, President Bush went back to a familiar well today, claiming once again that Iran is supporting insurgents that are attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces.
“The Iranian regime must halt these actions,” the president said. “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
Earlier, today, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had held a news conference in which he said his country was prepared to fill the “power vacuum” in Iraq, as the United States proceeds to withdraw. He quoted Agence France-Presse as saying that America’s power in the region is being destroyed.
********************************************************************
These events raise several interesting questions.
-Does President Bush have a legitimate point?
-Is he just jawboning, or does this signify an expansion of our military involvement in the Middle East?
-If not an expansion, then what did he mean when he said that he had authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities?
-Was the Iranian president’s message a further indication of Iraq’s drift into Iran’s sphere of influence?
-What’s behind the negative statements in the French press, just when relations between France and the United States seem to be improving?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
Bush doesn't have a legitimate point...he's just following the plan...see:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG502A.html
This not just jawboning...BushCo has always had the intention to bomb Iran. We have no troops so this means that it will be aerial attacks. Not just conventional bombs...Bush intends to nuke Iran:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_why_bush_will_nuke_iran_pcr.htm
The wise Chirac is no longer around...Sarkozy looks like a lightweight...it's all on Putins shoulder's to stop this insanity and he will stop it...peacefully or through war. Iraq was like Checkoslovakia...Iran will be like Poland...all hells going to break loose. We all know what happened to the Third Reich...wiser mind need to prevail or America's days as a super power are numbered. Dubya just might leave the next President with a full blown World War...and believe me...the world has been taking notes...we have no allies.
With America discredited globally because of the LIES told to justify an ILLEGAL INVASION of Iraq; with the American military stretched to the point where weekend warriors find themselves serving months in Iraq and tours of duty are extended and scheduled retirements postponed; with the American forces demoralized by the inability of their vast military might to subdue two impoverished nations; with the largest public debt and deficit in WORLD HISTORY; with an economy long expected to tank when the housing bubble burst now tanking: George W. Bush wants to show how little he has learned from all his misadventures and start a war with Iran.
Here are a few facts about these countries (source is the CIA World Factbook) :
Afghanistan population: 31,889,923
Iraq population: 27,499,638
IRAN Population: 65,397,521
Afghanistan life expectancy: 43.77 years
Iraq life expectancy: 69.31 years
IRAN life expectancy: 70.56 years
Afghanistan literacy rate: 28.1%
Iraq literacy rate: 74.1%
IRAN literacy rate: 77%
Afghanistan GDP per capita: $800
Iraq GDP per capita: $2,900
IRAN GDP per capita: $8,700
Afghanistan manpower fit for military service: 2,662,946
Iraq manpower fit for military service: 4,930,074
IRAN manpower fit for military service: 15,665,725
Considering that the USA at the time of its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 was not overstretched and fatigued and demoralized but rather highly motivated in the wake of the 9/11 attacks; considering that many nations around the world supported the invasion of Afghanistan as did the UN; considering that even without UN support the US went into Iraq with substantial support from the United Kingdom and other nations; considering the obvious fact that almost no nations will support any further military adventurism by the USA and certainly no substantial military support will be forthcoming for such utter foolishness; considering the distinct lack of success in either Iraq or Afghanistan:
How much do you want to go into a war with an opponent who has twice the population of either Iraq or Afghanistan, who's population is healthier as evidenced by their longer life span; who's population is better educated as evidenced by their higher literacy rate; who's society is far wealthier as evidenced by their substantially higher GDP; who's fighting forces are likely to be anywhere from three to seven times larger than that in Iraq or Afghanistan?
How do you think the US Armed Forces, stretched too thin already, demoralized by the stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention the instances of prisoner abuse at Abu Graib and the soldiers already incarcerated for killing Iraqi civilians and unsupported by any allies will do against a much more formidable opponent?
Remember, all these statistics aside, Iraq and Afghanistan were both on their knees even before the USA invaded them. Afghanistan had been in constant war either with larger nations (like the form USSR for ten years) or within themselves for 20 years before the invasion. Iraq had lost the Gulf War to a broad coalition of nations led by the USA in the early 1990s and had been cut into two no fly zones bookending a central region and suffering under severe UN sanctions since the end of that war. These nations could have been knocked over by France, let alone the vaunted USA.
Iran has suffered no such limitations. Their army will be well fed, well armed, well led and ready for a fight.
Where is the money going to come from to open up another front in the war on terrorism which supposedly began when 19 Saudi Arabians crashed planes into American targets resulting in invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and now maybe Iran but curiously not Saudi Arabia?
Where are the soldiers going to come from to fight this enemy?
Can you say: DRAFT!
U.S. troops raid Baghdad's Sheraton hotel --Prisoners include six members of Iranian delegation 28 Aug 2007 U.S. troops raided a Baghdad hotel Tuesday night and detained about 10 people. A U.S.-funded radio station said the group included six members of an Iranian delegation here to negotiate contacts with the Iraqis. The Iranian Embassy said seven Iranians including an embassy employee and six members of a delegation from Iran's Electricity Ministry were staying at the Sheraton Ishtar Hotel, which American forces entered late Tuesday.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-28-iraq-us-iran_N.htm
Meanwhile, a now defunct ally:
'The resistance will continue until the last soldier leaves Basra.' As British leave Basra, militias dig in --An Iraqi official says a deal was struck with the Mahdi Army to ensure a safe departure. 28 Aug 2007 The last contingent of British soldiers based in the center of this southern city will leave by Friday, says a senior Iraqi security official, adding that a deal has been struck with leaders of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to ensure their safe departure [*surrender*].
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0828/p01s03-wome.html
How many people in America would rather see George W. Bush in prison than starting a war with Iran?
Never has never will.
Read yesterday that Draft Bill had been put before congress. Is this in preparation to invading Iran? The British can tell us all about Empire Building. They had a hell of a tiem hanging on to India and a few others. Bush the Emiprer wanabe has got to go and before the election. IMPEACH NOW. He has committed Treason and the FBI should be arresting him. Treason is a Felony with a max sentence of Death. His deals with SPP, NAU and the NAFTA highway should have been enough to charge him. The SPP and NAU want to overthrow the government and he is in concert with them.
He should have been content with just winning the one Bin Laden started, but he gave up on that one.
I think Felix and Rory have pretty well covered the ground here. I don't know if Felix is correct in thinking Bush intends a nuclear strike on Iran, but it's a very plausible scenario. I would just add one thing, which is that the Iranian population, at least in the urban centers, is actually well disposed toward the U.S. and not happy with the present government and the mullahs. The economy, despite all that oil, is actually in bad shape, and that lunatic Ahmedinejhad has a lot of problems on his plate. If we launch an attack on Iran, all that changes: the whole country will unite against us. It would be insane for Bush to do this -- which is why Felix's prediction is plausible.
This issue is one I have been ranting on for some time now, but it is taking on new seriousness with me as of now. It puts me in a bit of a quandary as to what to do to prepare for it ... but I suspect that I will end up just getting taken for the ride as most will.
When this actually begins, you can expect rioting type demonstrations that will give the excuse for declaring Martial law ... followed by the draft and dissenters rounded up and 'sequestered' ... we will lose the freedom of the Internet which will be by far the biggest blow to any coordinated resistance ...
It is beginning to look really bad to me ... this is what the ancient prophesies have been trying to tell us all ... along with many newer revelations around the world in new-age and indigenous native societies.
Bye bye ...
This BS is the blame game to gain domestic support for the phony counter-surgency surge (the US since January 2007 has been bombing and killing civilians more than at any time since 2003, which is increasing the insurgency) and avoid having critics in Congress and elsewhere saying the US didn't try to practice diplomacy with Iran as the Iraq Study Group suggested.
-"Was the Iranian president's message a further indication of Iraq's drift into Iran's sphere of influence?"
Note that Ahmadinejad stressed Iran's role as a leader and partner with Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states in establishing regional stability . Iran has supported stability in Iraq and doesn't want to get directly involved. Iran knows most Iraqis are nationalists , and the leading political figure, Moqtada Sadr, although a Shia, is not pro-Iranian.
Ahmadinejad's rhetoric was partly to rub in the political setback to the US : negotiations between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reached to a point where the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has virtually normalized Iran's nuclear dossier. A just-released note of understanding between the two sides reaffirms, among other things, the following:
"The agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use. "
Details of a working document agreed between Iran and IAEA inspectors were released this week. The two sides want to resolve questions about Tehran's nuclear program and set a timetable for "transparency" by December.
Ahmadinejad's anti-American rhetoric is also self-serving. He is the weakest of three political factions in Iran and risks being removed from the presidency
-"What's behind the negative statements in the French press, just when relations between France and the United States seem to be improving?"
The new French president is a globalist puppet, like Tony Blair was in the UK. He wants to be the US's "French poodle," which many French aren't fooled by
As for the nuclear problem, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al ignored the findings of the inspectors in Iraq when they concluded that the WMD program had been ended -- they won't listen to the IAEA if they tell them Iran isn't going for weapons if the have decided to take military action on that basis. Can our feckless Congress stop them if they decide to go for it?
He quoted Agence France-Presse as saying that America's power in the region is being destroyed.
I read the French newspapers and what was said was that Agence France Press (equivalent to Reuters) reported that Ahmadinejad said ... America's power in the region is being destroyed.
Sarkozy did say that in the event Iran did launch nuclear weapons that "there would be an eventual but catastrophic bombardment of Iran".
I really hope that this is only sabre rattling and that we don't go to war with Iran since we barely have enough ammo not to mention assorted hardware and men to send to Iraq and Afganistan.
Furthermore, if the draft is instituted, then watch Russia, China, Europe ramp up their military ... hell, the whole world will do that. Right now, for the first time since the end of the cold war, Russia now has long range "nuke" bombers in the air.
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs against Iran: This Way Lies Madness
Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:17:19 -0600
By Stephen M. Osborn
Republished from The Center for Research on Globalization
Bush has demanded and received permission to use nuclear "bunker busters" in Iran in a preemptive strike.
The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear "bunker busters" in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The "bunker buster" is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.
The Castle-Bravo blast at Bikini in 1954 was a fifteen megaton surface blast. It blew a hole over a mile wide and four hundred feet deep in the atoll, completely obliterating the island and vaporizing over thirteen billion cubic feet of coral, rock and water, sending it in a radioactive cloud extending into the stratosphere. The fallout over the atolls downwind was devastating to the people and ecology there. All of that material is rendered extremely radioactive and as it cools it condenses to fall as rain or radioactive "snow" which contaminates everything it touches. The effects are felt worldwide.
more at:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/8168/Nuclear_Bunker_Buster_Bombs
_against_Iran_This_Way_Lies_Madness
The Sunday London Times is reporting that Israel has drawn up secret plans to use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy uranium-enrichment sites in Iran.
Two Israeli air force squadrons have been training for a mission against an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters," Israeli military sources told the Times.
The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
WND reported Israel's training against a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in March 2005. Tactics included raids by Israel's elite Shaldag commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from the 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs purchased from the U.S. to penetrate underground facilities.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53661
Writing in Antiwar.com (June 10), University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch explains the tripwire that the Bush Regime has laid for Iran in order to have an excuse to launch an attack on that country. Just as the Bush Regime planned to attack Iraq and then orchestrated a case based on lies, the Bush Regime has already planned to attack Iran. Only this time nuclear weapons will be used.
Nuking Iran is an essential part of the attack plan. The US lacks the necessary conventional military force to invade and occupy Iran, but the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has a wider purpose. The neocons are determined not to have any more embarrassments, such as the Iraqi insurgency. By nuking Iran they intend to send a wider message that the US will use every means at its disposal to ensure its hegemony. The neocons believe that the use of nukes will convince Arabs and the wider world that there is no recourse to accepting America's will.
The neoconservatives could not care less about public opinion. Neocons are contemptuous of the American people. Leo Strauss taught neocons that it was their duty to deceive the clueless American people in order to implement their agenda of global domination. The neocons believe that they have a perfect right, even the obligation, to manipulate the public through propaganda and black ops in order to create acceptance and support for their wars of aggression.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060611_iran.htm
The 'option' that won't be taken off the table...is in point of fact the only option.
Jorge Hirsch of Antiwar.com has written many articles on this subject...check out:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=10544
On the right side of the article there are links to other articles on nuking Iran. Here's an excerpt from the link above:
"Nuclear weapons have been around for over 60 years, and it has always been solely the president's prerogative to decide on their use. However, nuclear weapons were always considered weapons of last resort, to deter, respond or preempt a devastating attack from a nuclear country. It is only during the Bush administration that these nuclear policies have been radically changed to make U.S. nuclear weapons "another tool in the toolbox."
Starting with the Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, the U.S. has changed both its nuclear policy and its nuclear force structure to serve the purpose of defeating any potential adversary, whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons for that matter. For example, Pentagon guidelines now encourage military commanders to seek presidential authorization to use nuclear weapons "for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms," "to ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations," and "to demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons." Nuclear and conventional capabilities have been "integrated" within the U.S. Strategic Command structure for "the most efficient use of force."
The radical nature of these changes in policy and force structure can hardly be overemphasized. The firewall that always existed between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons has been obliterated without leaving any trace, single-handedly by the Executive, without consulting either Congress or the American people. Congress should have demanded its right to approve or reject and thereby reverse these changes, but has not.
And the reason why the firewall should be there still exists, as towering as ever. Nuclear weapons are weight for weight million-fold more powerful than conventional weapons, and the existing nuclear arsenals can wipe out humanity many times over. Once we start using nuclear weapons again, there will be no return."
Appreciate all the research and information! I can't believe that even Bush would consider starting a nuclear war. He has advisor's who know better and I can't help but believe that cooler heads will ultimately prevail here!
The only thing that I have confidence that Bush WILL do .... is the wrong thing ...... what does he care about consequences? ....
The Iran which US hates was helping Iraqis shias when US was a friend of Saddam Hussein & never had any objections to his acts. It gave refugee to those persecuted shias, it was attacked for 10 yrs while US supported Saddam in his war. And now US is complaining abt Iran, preach what u practice is the motto we should follow.
I remember that the first President I heard threatening to use nuclear weapons was George Sr. I did a double take, "What did he justs say?" Now with his son it has become very matter-of factly. Insane is what it is.
This is no mere threat. We have delivered bunker busters to another country (Israel) for them to use them against Iraq. So we're no longer in control of whether we'll just threaten to use them or actually use them...we've turned over that decision to a third party...check out: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece
and,
Agence France Presse April 28, 2005
US Unveils Plans To Sell 'Bunker Busters' To Israel
Experts believe 'bunker busting' bombs could be used against Iran's underground uranium enrichment facility.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050428-israel-bunkerbusters.htm
The media makes it sound like these nukes are very precise and will only target Iran's nuclear facility. This stuff is highly unpredictable and it will get out into the general population. You don't want to open this Pandora's box of unforeseeable consequences. Russia and the former Soviet Republics are right next door they don't need this and I surmise will not stand idly by.
Interestingly, Ahmadinejad has said that it will dismantle it's nuclear facilities if Israel does the same. This whole issue would go away if Israel dismantles it's nuclear sites...like Dimona. Here's an article from 2004:
http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/archive9/20040603worldtribune.html
We'll get no help from Congress or the leading candidates running for President...people like Russ Feingold, Chuck Hagel, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul carry no weight in the circles of decision making. They're populist and we all know that in Bush World the people be damned...it's like comments from the peanut gallery.
Yet, there is a group that can and in fact have stopped this insane drive to war. The group is the generals. We were slated to attack earlier this past spring when this pleasant surprise came down:
February 25, 2007
US Generals 'Will Quit' If Bush Orders Iran Attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
"There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," a source with close ties to British intelligence said. "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible."
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. "All the generals are perfectly clear that they don't have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
"There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations."
A generals' revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. "American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired," said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not "be right to take military action against Iran".
more at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Note the name of Gates. Yet, since than Bush has done some reshuffling in hopes of getting the complaisant enough group of generals in place. Robotic generals like Petraeus.
So our' only hope may lie with the top brass of the military. You know, those guys who actually know about war and it's consequences.
Every President since Harry Truman has used our nuclear capability as an unspoken bargaining tool and I would not be surprised to learn one or more of them had actually threatened to use nukes rather than using "dire consequences" and such euphemisms to allude to them. I might have even heard one of them do it during the Cold War era, but the nuclear shadow was so ever present, that the only time talk about nukes attracted our undivided attention was when the President commandeered the airwaves and those addresses were largely ignored unless there was an ongoing crisis. The only we would not have ignored was the one that never came., the unplanned interruption that began, with a very somber, "My fellow Americans, .............", and was followed by the sound of civil defense warning sirens,
You don't have to be a general to know the consequences of military action, but the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces should have a better understanding of them that the average citizen who knows enough to know that he or she has little choice but hope that some of the possible consequences never come to pass because there is no scriptwriter to guarantee a happy ending.
President's only spoke of our' nuclear weapons as deterrents not as weapons that they would use first, only in retaliation...and certainly, not against a non-nuclear nation. This policy of pre-emption is entirely new to American policy and more specificaly...neocon.
And George Bush certainly does not seem to know what the consequences of war are, because even when they are before his' face...he doesn't see them. It also doesn't take a nuclear physicist to realize that if you can't win in Iraq militarily...you most certainly are not going to pull it off in Iran.
In matters of going to war there is an enormous difference between a preppie President like Bush and an old general like Eisenhower. Ike saw war up close and personal...Bush hasn't...even though in the military during the Vietnam War...he somehow managed to stay stateside and now he wants others to make the sacrifices he never made.
Naturally, most Americans assume that the goals of the administration are the protection of and advancement of the United States of America and its people. Even those who believe that Bush et al have gone about pursuing these goals in an ass-backwards kind of way, doing the wrong thing at every step and acheiving the opposite effect, still assume that their intentions are good and honourable even if they are ham-fisted in their execution.
I believe this is wrong.
The Bush administration is bent on bringing America to its knees. Let's face it, these people are not all stupid (though George himself clearly isn't the brightest bulb on the tree). Cheney was a high ranking official in both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, as was Rumsfeld. Rice is clearly a highly intelligent woman. Rove, though he may actually be an inhuman demon, is a clever fellow.
Cheney knew in advance how the Iraq situation would turn out. He said so quite prophetically back at the end of the Gulf War during the Bush Sr. administration. It wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq and destabilize the entire region, it was the intent.
These people have a goal they never speak of: global corporate hegemony. They want a small cabal of corporate power brokers to control the world absolutely.
Given that as a goal, what would the biggest obstacle to achieving it?
The answer is obvious.
The biggest obstacle to corporate control of the world would be a powerful, freedom-loving, democratic nation with the ability to resist mult-national economic corporate power and to legislate controls over it. That nation would be the United States of America.
To remove that obstacle one would have to: undermine freedom and democracy in the USA (eg The Patriot Act); impoverish the nation (the debt and deficit created by unwise tax cuts which basically transferred the wealth of the nation into the hands of the wealthy corporate owners); isolate them from their allies (hmm, how to do that? Oh, yeah, invade an impoverished country with no rational excuse for doing so.); divide the population over issues unrelated to world power (like abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayers, public/secular vs. religious schools); and reap the benefits.
It is a brilliant plan. Owning the media and both the Democratic and Republican parties made it pretty easy to implement, too.
One almost has to hope the China is still powerful enough to resist these fascists.
Please be sure and post all of your photos, posts and videos to the group and don't forget to stop by and comment on group content!