Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rumsfield pushing for war on Iran

G

Groucho

Wrapped in plastic
Rumsfield is blaming Iran for the mess that Iraq is in and says they'll regret it:

"They [Iran] are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," Mr Rumsfeld told a news conference.

"We know it, and it is something that they... will look back on as having been an error in judgement," he added.

Asked whether the alleged insertion of Iranian forces into Iraq was backed by the central government in Tehran, Mr Rumsfeld said: "Of course, the Qods force does not go milling around willy-nilly, one would think."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4783688.stm
 
TOLD YOU SO. (sorry)

Create a destabalised Iraq, blame in not the war you`ve just waged but on "foreign insurgents" so you have a pretext to invade the whole middle east oil region....

Please listen to people who are trying to warn everyone about the march of the police state. ESPECIALLY if your American.
 
I can't see how they can seriously think about war in Iran.

It's a fucking joke, Iraq has show how weak the worlds only superpower really is.

They're clearly gearing up for it though - I guess Dubya only has a few years left to fight another war ... gotta get a move on ... :rolleyes:
 
Azrael23 said:
TOLD YOU SO. (sorry)

Create a destabalised Iraq, blame in not the war you`ve just waged but on "foreign insurgents" so you have a pretext to invade the whole middle east oil region....

Please listen to people who are trying to warn everyone about the march of the police state. ESPECIALLY if your American.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're such a soothsayer that you told people on this site stuff they've been saying for the last 3 yrs or so.

Bully for you, with your gift for prophesying the bloody obvious.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Yeah, you're such a soothsayer that you told people on this site stuff they've been saying for the last 3 yrs or so.

Bully for you, with your gift for prophesying the bloody obvious.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say something but I thought best to ignore...

What happened when Vietnam started to go horribly wrong and discontent began to rise at home? They bombed the fuck out of Cambodia. In fact they dropped 540000 tons of bombs, killing anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 ...
 
I was only joking, and I was talking to the people like rentonite.

War against Iran is more like rolling over the border and nabbing 90% of the oil in the first region. They could then either impose a new border until they can martial more forces (draft!) or they could say oh...they`ve learnt their lesson now...we`ll be nice and cede this region to the UN (like the oil in Iraq).
Of course we can trust the UN :rolleyes:

War against Iran is not logistically impossible.
 
Azrael23 said:
War against Iran is not logistically impossible.
Click to expand...

I think invasion is near impossible. But I do think they are gearing up to bombing Iran to hell. And yes, it is largely all about controlling the region because of oil.
 
Azrael23 said:
War against Iran is more like rolling over the border and nabbing 90% of the oil in the first region. They could then either impose a new border until they can martial more forces (draft!) or they could say oh...they`ve learnt their lesson now...we`ll be nice and cede this region to the UN (like the oil in Iraq).
Click to expand...

If this is an example of your prophesising, then, if I was you, I wouldn't give up my day job.
 
In my view it is about time someone bombs the USA to hell.
Yet it would be much better if the rest of the world finally found the decency to tell lunatics like Rumsfeld & crew to shut up.

Meanwhile in Iran:
Student organisations and other groups organising the enrollment for training in armed resistance, with a few options for candidate-suiciders to choose from. Some gatherings bring 30 % and more of enrollments (male and female) for such a quick course in how to kill the enemy where ever you can find him.

Thank you so very much once again to the arrogant, bloodthirsty, greedy shameless scum first class, commonly named USA.

I shall sign this post with "salaam" as usual although I am convinced some readers do not want "peace" but for their greedy own at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives.

salaam.
 
This has been on the horizon for a long time.

I have this strange, probably utterly naive feeling, that somehow this one is not going to quite go to Herr Rumsfeld and his cohorts' plans.

Just a feeling in my water.
 
Discussing this earlier with someone in real life...

1) No sane military commander would agree to a land invasion of Iran. It's very crinkly and crinkly favours the defending partisans - the example they'll have done in officer school is Tito whupping the Wehrmacht's arse.

2) The US seems to be following a strategy of ramping up tension while trying to get other countries (whatever they may be) on board - and Rumsfeld's and Bolton's sabre-rattling may be directed toward preparing the landscape for this - making proposals for blockades and so on look "reasonable" by comparison and so on - rather than actual immediate threats.

3) I'm increasingly convinced much of this US sabre-rattling is "for domestic consumption" - in the same way that Iran's noises against Israel are.

4) On that basis the time to expect a cruise missile strike would be October. The mid-term elecections are on 7 November.

5) On the other hand the loons in Israel's government may want to goad the US into action by threatening to do something really, really stupid. And they face elections on 28 March :eek:
 
laptop said:
Discussing this earlier with someone in real life...
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that. The best explanation of DC's oddly incompetent handling of things in Iraq is that they're overwhelming focused on domestic US opinion and electoral success.

At the moment they need to find someone to blame; Iraq is falling apart and Rummie is preparing Operation Cover Ass. Studies of Vietnam show focusing public anger on the enemy is cruicial to a wars popularity, so is the appearence of aggressive action. Looking impotent, which DC is in this situation is what destroyed LBJ.

I think ineffectual Clintonian air strikes a couple of months before the congressional midterms are likely. This gets more likely if Iraq worsens and DC has nothing left too lose. It will probably destroy DC's already crumbling alliance with the Shi'a and hasten US departure from Iraq.

Iran is very involved in Iraq but I think this is more political than military. Their goal is a weak but stable Shi'a dominated neighbor that's reliant on Tehran's protection. DC would have liked an Israel friendly, superficially democratic, vassal state which is how Kurdistan may end up, the rest of the country is lost to them.
 
Rumsfeld is 74 this year, I make it. Like a doddery old man who likes to moan about his dodgy hip and how the youngsters have no respect he cant stop himself from running his mouth ~ I wouldn't worry too much about exactly what he says.

Having said that there have been threads running here on how Iraq qas next since 2002, and there is no doubt that the animosity between the two remains. I just wonder whether the USA's inability to act on Iran is promoting them to mouth off that bit louder.

Having said all that, who knows what US planners really have in mind ~ who knows what sick calculations the yhave drawn up for the region, and to what extent they want to deliberately destabilise the entire region. No thought tis beyond theire sick minds.

"4) On that basis the time to expect a cruise missile strike would be October. The mid-term elecections are on 7 November." - Not so convinced that this is a vote-winner back home ~ but who can tell what makes a US citizen vote.
 
Azrael23 said:
I`m offering a view thats all. :confused:
Click to expand...

You're offering more of the same conspiranoid bullshit, kid, no more no less.

Just because you're gullible enough to believe any old fairytale doesn't mean you should get so angry when nobody else is as gullible as you.
 
It is worth bearing in mind, I think, that the ruling elite in the US will not be of one mind. There will be those who want to invade, though they are hardly likely to convince the military, there are those who want to sabre rattle, and then there are those who want to bomb. The background to it all is a fairly desperate policy of ensuring US economic and military hegemony for the forseable future. The mess that is Iraq in and of itself will not lead to a tactical withdrawl. Mounting opposition at home might - but the first response to that will most likely be repression and Marcarthy style witchunts, which will become ever more hysterical. The first response in terms of the war may well be to escallate in desperation. If it aint going well throw some big motherfucker bombs at it!

The Rumsfield statement - is in effect to accuse Iran of military intervention in Iraq - a military assault on US interests. He will know that his words effectively throw down the gauntlet to the US elite. From his point of view action has to be taken. He is not, unortunately, a maverik.

A question for us is: as the US edges to war against Iran will the UK Govt. jump on board, or will the US lose a valuable international ally. Opposition to the continuing war here has to step up a gear. Those opposing war in the US have stated that they were inspired to go on by the huge movement in the UK. The anti-war movement in the US is on the up; we shouldn't let them down now.
 
niksativa said:
"4) On that basis the time to expect a cruise missile strike would be October. The mid-term elecections are on 7 November." - Not so convinced that this is a vote-winner back home ~ but who can tell what makes a US citizen vote.
Click to expand...
This poll suggests that while only 42% American want to bomb Iran 83% of Republicans favor bombing it. As Rove has always focused on fully mobilising the GOP base it's the second number that is signifigant. More polls, at the moment it's clear a diplomatic solution is what Yanks want but once Dubya starts saying that has failed this can be crafted into an issue that will shepard the party faithful into the voting booths to be sheared once more.

I'm reminded of one of the papers from the US Army war college that I posted up a year or so ago on War Policy, Public Support, and the Media:
In summary, as intimated by Clausewitz, the most important factor in tapping and shaping the “blind hatred” for an enemy that underpins public support for a conflict is aggressive, decisive national policy as reflected in bold actions to achieve clear, specific political and military objectives. Conversely, the absence of such focused and bold policy appears to be the primary factor that dissipates the resolve and focus of the people’s “moral forces.” It is also useful to note that such aggressive policy increasing the commitment of a people’s moral forces to the cause would include policy measures to demand participation and sacrifice from citizens on the home front in building the “battle sword” of overwhelming force, as well as to fund and produce the robust logistical support systems that are required in the execution of grand national policy to achieve military objectives.
Click to expand...
The US occupation of Iraq has been charecterised by strategic dithering and weakness at the highest level of command. The best way to obsure this is actually to offer the American voter a spectacle that demonstrates DC's power.

Attacking Iran would actually mark the point when DC accepted total failure in Iraq. With Khalizad talking of Pandora's box we are damn close to that and this administration will to everything it can to deflect blame from the GOP.
 
Did anyone see Jon Snow's report from Iran on C4 News last night? It suggests that there's an awful lot of sabre rattling for the domestic audience going on in the statements of Bolton, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon fruitcakes.

In the meantime it would appear that cooler heads are actually trying to engage constructively with Iran to help in Iraq ...

Jon Snow said:
I am in my normal posture in Iraq stuck in traffic slumped in a taxi after a briefing with a senior Iranian in Iraq.

His perspective is amazing and I emerged from two hours with him pretty convinced that if anyone is ever going to sort everything out in Iraq, they are going to need all the assistance Iran can give them.

To that end, he says he has been contacted by the US ambassador in Baghdad and asked to come and talk. Of course, the Americans want this to appear in complete secrecy. Meanwhile the Iranians, if they agree to it, and they have been asked repeatedly for six months, will want all the publicity they are capable of mustering.

It seems like a rather urgent request, especially considering the US is in full tirade against Iran on the nuclear issue as well as having its hands tied in Iraq. He showed me enough material to convince me that this is true
Click to expand...

The above text is an excerpt from Jon Snow's Iran blog on the C4 website. If true then Tehran must be feeling very confident in its dealings over the nuclear issue.
 
atitlan said:
...If true then Tehran must be feeling very confident in its dealings over the nuclear issue.
Click to expand...
Snow is right. I've heard if you want to get things done in Baghdad at the moment you go to the Iranian Embassy not the American one. Though I think the Iranians over-estimate the grip that gives them on DC which at the best of times doesn't have their Persian subtly and currently shows a distaste for rational calculations of its own interest.
 
I remember when I first saw a broadcast on British television about the Iraq war, about six months before bombing began. It was so clearly a fait accompli.

Last night's Channel 4 News was very interesting because it looked so markedly different. A repeat performance may have been planned in the Pentagon and the White House; I do not believe for one nano-second that it will be such an easy campaign if they do manage to kick it off.

The ghost of Iraq hangs over everything the neo-cons are attempting to do now.

This one just does not feel like the fait accompli, and the military walkover, that a campaign against a crumbling Baathist regime was three years ago.
 
The media have not jumped on the Govt propaganda without question this time. Recent inteligence sources stating that Iran could be within months of attaining technology enabling nuclear weapons (as opposed to previous statements of up to ten years) have not resulted in 'Iran could nuke us in months' headlines.
They will find it much harder this time around. But that doesn't mean the US will not bomb Iran or that the UK will not support any such action.
The pensions strikes on 28th should help revitalise the unions. Tomorrow's demo is extremely important. If they do bomb Iran (they won't be invading any time soon I suspect, but they might bomb to test the water) we should create merry hell.

Last time there were walk outs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2856871.st

Next time there has to be mass walk outs.
 
Aldebaran said:
I shall sign this post with "salaam" as usual although I am convinced some readers do not want "peace" but for their greedy own at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives.

salaam.
Click to expand...

Looks like you're one of them.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
A good question to ask is why our troops in Iraq should get killed over this.
Click to expand...

It is a fair point that if Iran is bombed then the UK troops would be an obvious target for reprisals. Of course better for everyone if they were withdrawn. As Galloway says on the front page of this wek's Socialist Worker:

""The other attempt to trivialise the danger is the claim that action would 'only' be air strikes or amilitary blockade to enforce sanctions.
The implicite assumption is that Iran would not hit back. But it will hit back - most directly in the South of Iraq where just 8,000 British soldiers are surrounded by ten million Shia Muslims.'

Sanctions and/or bombing raids are of course a way of upping the tempo towards full scale war. Any escallation of this insane conflict has to be resisted.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I'm sure you'd be overjoyed JC, all those nasty muslims dying ...
Click to expand...

Not at all; I'm pointing out the duplicity of aldebaran, complaining about US aggression, then advocating the bombing of the place.

He's an islamic warmonger, pure and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bingoman
Iran Pakistan tensions
Replies
6
Views
454
yield
Y
Yuwipi Woman
The Republican War on Children
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Ax^
Ax^
hash tag
War is a crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
A380
A380
Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
279
Views
15K
teqniq
teqniq
PTK
Anti-War Songs
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
hash tag
hash tag
Back
Top Bottom