Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bush says Iran is next!

nino_savatte said:
Some of America's previous profiteers

Albert Fall
USAfallA.JPG


Warren G Harding
http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/0000013c.jpg (too big to post)

I always seem to have trouble posting even small images.

...

Allan Pinkerton

USApinkerton.jpg
 
Israel/Iran the four day war I think the boys at American Conservative Magazine are turning French, how could attacking Iran ever backfire afterall the Lord is on our side. And the very idea of Israel making peace with the Arab world is sedition. Bombing them into the stone age and then sending in Haliburton at the Tax payers (Poor folks) expense is the Republican way.

There's a stoutly isolationist article by Paleo-Con Pat Buchannan in the same issue. Pat is only slightly to the left of Hitler but he pours scorn on Dubya's Iraqi debacle.
 
what happens when u bomb a nuclear power station?

chernobyl 2?

it's time to send the UN NUKE Inspectors & the IEAE tetc., into ISRAEL.

Iran haven't even threatened Israel.

This whole pre-emptive strike thing was cooked up in the PNAC.
 
wot invisible planet said in #144-did a better job than I could, but I'd have said broadly similar.
given the US record of aggression - and the Iranian record of non-aggression - I'd trust the latter any day.
 
the financial times reports that the Bush administration is now openly talking about a military strike on Iran .

Iran is emboldened by the mess that the US is in in Iraq. There are reports that the US has run out of troops and reservists!

Perhaps they're reckoning that there has never been a safer time to get away with building a nuclear weapon; though the notion that hey are about to build nuclear weapons (as anyone who has read this thread will know) is full of half truths and broken promises, and is ultimately pure speculation and bias. Any attack will be another pre-emptive war crime.
 
the financial times reports that the Bush administration is now openly talking about a military strike on Iran .

Iran is emboldened by the mess that the US is in in Iraq. There are reports that the US has run out of troops and reservists!

Perhaps they're reckoning that there has never been a safer time to get away with building a nuclear weapon; though the notion that hey are about to build nuclear weapons (as anyone who has read this thread will know) is full of half truths and broken promises, and is ultimately pure speculation and bias. Any attack will be another illegal pre-emptive war crime.
 
niksativa said:
the financial times reports that the Bush administration is now openly talking about a military strike on Iran

and from that FT report:

Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says that with "enough intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a good job" of slowing Iran's programme for a while.

But, he cautions, the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for the aftermath.

That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered in the debate over "regime change".

Asked whether Israel would take military action if the US dithered, Mr Schmitt replied: "Absolutely. No government in Israel will let this pass ultimately."

Gary Schmitt is another student of Leo Strauss (Chicago Uni.)

In her book "Leo Strauss and the American Right", Shadia Drury elaborates on Strauss' view that a political aristocracy must necessarily manipulate the masses for their own good. The Straussian worldview, according to Drury, contends that “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them.
source: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402nsai.php

niksativa said:
Perhaps they're reckoning that there has never been a safer time to get away with building a nuclear weapon; though the notion that hey are about to build nuclear weapons (as anyone who has read this thread will know) is full of half truths and broken promises, and is ultimately pure speculation and bias. Any attack will be another illegal pre-emptive war crime.

Surely it is undeniable that Israel's political/military agenda is driving the US foreign/military policy.

Robert Pippen, chairman of the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, attributes Strauss with believing that “good statesmen must rely on an inner circle. The person who whispers in the ear of the king is more important than the king.”

In defending Bush, Richard Perle told the New York Times that the president was a “consumer of intelligence, not a producer of it.”

But that isn't the point of most critics of the administration. No one was accusing Bush himself of manufacturing intelligence. Most Americans critical of the intelligence presented to justify the preventive war have two overriding concerns:

One issue is that the president was not a discriminating consumer of intelligence. Weapons inspector David Kay told Congress that “we were all wrong” about the threat assessments the preceded the war. But neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the International Atomic Energy Commission were wrong when they found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Apparently President Bush uncritically accepted the politicized intelligence fed to him by his inner circle. However, hundreds of millions of war critics around the world were skeptical of the cooked-up evidence of the Hussein regime's stockpile of WMDs and the claims of ties with al Qaeda bandied about by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Powell. The lesson is that if the president is a merely consumer of intelligence, then he has the responsibility of being an intelligent consumer.

A second concern relates to the issue about whom the president selects to whisper in his ear. The inner circle surrounding Bush is profoundly influenced by the elitist political philosophy of Leo Strauss and by the dubious theory of politicized intelligence promoted by neoconservatives associated with such groups as the National Strategy Information Center, Project for the New American Century, and Center for Security Policy. Bush relies on a tightly linked network of ideologues and militarists within the Pentagon and vice president's office, and to a lesser extent at the National Security Council and the State Department, while sidelining the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This inside network operates in turn as an extension of a web of right-wing think tanks and policy institutes outside the administration that not only routinely whisper in the king's ear but successfully convert their own agendas for intelligence, foreign policy, and national security reform into government policy.
source: irc-online, as before
 
Well they will be in Iraq for over 10 years and Iran will have 20 times the level of resistence (especially suicide bombers) as there is in Iraq.

So geworge better get another army from somewhere :D
 
Iran given new nuclear 'deadline'

The International Atomic Energy Agency has passed a resolution calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment - a key process used to make nuclear weapons.

It also asked Iran to grant access to IAEA inspectors and provide them with any further information needed.

The resolution imposes an indirect deadline of 25 November, when the IAEA board of governors is next set to meet.
Source
 
Surely it is undeniable that Israel's political/military agenda is driving the US foreign/military policy.

Actually Seymour Hersh thinks the Iranians are the ones pulling the strings.

While he's on the money about dreamy Neo-Con utopianism I'd have my doubts that even the Iranians are that deviously effective.
 
The historic beef between Washington and Tehran that goes back thirty years plus suggests that any form of strike against Iran would be acceptable to the US administration. I dont think there is the remotest consideration of all out invasion, simply the checking of Iran with a strike.

Newsweek reports that US spy agencies have been running war game models to see the outcome of such an attack (on nuclear facilities).
Even though the results of the war games are that it wouldnt solve a thing, that doesnt mean that they would rule it out. There objective is not to resolve but to destabilise, as well as retaliate to Iranian attacks of the past.

This is all in the shadow of the UN announcement that the Iranian nuclear program IS NOT an 'imminent threat'!

Again, this doesnt mean a thing to the US whose goals are to establish control in the long term within the Middle East - a black eye to Iran will always fit in to such strategic planning.

-----
Just a thought: if these arguments between the US and Iran can run for so many years over different presidencies and administrations, how much control does any one president have in shaping foreign policy and how much is just the outcome of system and planning run outside of the White House (CIA?)?
In the two party state there is probably no chance of moving beyond a postion of conflict with Iran, just as there was no chance of making peace with the USSR (unless Iran decides to self-implode vis-a-vis Russia...)
 
Just curious as to why this week of all weeks the bush administration has agreed to sell the Isreali government 50 plus " bunker-busting" bombs.......
 
cemertyone said:
Just curious as to why this week of all weeks the bush administration has agreed to sell the Isreali government 50 plus " bunker-busting" bombs.......

To use against Iranian nuclear facilities.
 
cemertyone said:
Just curious as to why this week of all weeks the bush administration has agreed to sell the Isreali government 50 plus " bunker-busting" bombs.......

500+, I think you'll find. :(
 
ViolentPanda said:
500+, I think you'll find. :(

http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/479647.html said:
U.S. to sell Israel 5,000 smart bombs
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service

The United States will sell Israel 5,000 smart bombs for $319 million, according to a report made to Congress a few weeks ago.

The funding will come from the U.S. military aid to Israel, and the bombs range from airborne versions, guidance units, training bombs and detonators. The bombs are guided by satellite, in a system already in the Israel Defense Forces arsenal. The guidance unit receives a signal from a satellite, correcting the bomb's course to the target.

The Pentagon told Congress that the bombs are meant to maintain Israel's qualitative advantage, and advance U.S. strategic and tactical interests.

Among the bombs the air force will get are 500 one-ton bunker busters that can penetrate two-meter-thick cement walls; 2,500 regular one-ton bombs; 1,000 half-ton bombs; and 500 quarter-ton bombs

and Powell states categorically that the US is not planning to attack Iran (which is probably govt. doublespeak for #we're getting that done by proxy courtesey of Israel's Military#).
star tribune said:
UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that there are no plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, despite the Pentagon's recent agreement to sell Israel 500 bunker-buster bombs capable of disabling underground weapons plants.

But speaking to reporters, Powell pointedly added, "Every nation has all options available to it" to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons
 
cemertyone said:
Just curious as to why this week of all weeks the bush administration has agreed to sell the Isreali government 50 plus " bunker-busting" bombs.......

the Iranian govt. says that it's an attempt at 'psychological warfare'

i think it's another example of the US 'war by proxy'
 
Back
Top Bottom