Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf
- Thread starter Spytheweb
- Start date
all of a sudden you put enormous credence in our intelligence capabilities?.......were our own intelligence agencies right about iraq?....n.korea?....
how the hell would you know what our intelligence community truly knows or believes given the fact that bush left so many clintonistas in the cia and intelligence community after taking office....what a mistake...idiots that are more intent on harming the administration than doing their damned jobs...
nobody in this world is truly deluded enough to think that iran stopped their nuclear program....even al baradei said in a recent arab interview that he thinks they could have a nuclear weapon in as little as 6 months to a year....
i can pull up information as far back as 2003 showing how al baradei has moved the bar as iran`s nuclear program has moved forward....
and btw...iraq`s military WAS routed in a total of 21 days....count `em...(the subject was iran`s missiles/military....not an insurgency or al qaeda)...
even though their military is crude and outdated,iran could cause us problems....serious problems......
.like maybe closing down the straits of hormuz or,when they accomplish their nuclear aspirations, passing off a crude nuclear/chemical weapon to some terrorist proxy.....
how scary is that?...this country getting hit with a crude nuclear/chemical bomb sponsored by iran...but having no way of proving that it was iran...
it`s perfect...and useful idiots like yourself are more than willing to sit by and let it happen...
with an iranian nuclear weapon...in the hands of religious fanatics....everything changes...
whattaya think saddam was trying to do by going into kuwait?...he was trying to expand his influence and control even more of the middle east`s oil resources....
if he`d had nuclear weapons,he`d probably still be there....or ,israel would have been hit with nukes bringing forth armageddon....
do you even think about the ramifications of your appeasing,capitulation rants?....
if WE make no effort to preempt these mystic crazies from getting doomsday weapons,do you really trust the u.n. to handle it?.....
seriously?....
you are aware that it`s taken the u.n. over 300 days to even consider starting an investigation into the israeli bombing of that alleged nuclear facility in syria...
300+days later, and the UN finally decides to act?
what exactly are they hoping to find now?....we have satellite evidence that the site has been scoured and scrubbed of any traces of what happened there. ...
now,these u.n. inspectors will have three days to figure out what was going on....
they're going to be given a highly sanitized tour of the area, and the syrian thugs are going to watch them like hawks to make sure that they go only where the syrians want them to.
anyone that places any faith in the iaea or the u.n. to uncover syria's nuclear ambitions hasn't been paying attention....
puh-leeeze...
Last edited:
lol- that's an interesting argument.
Ahhh yes, the 'Clintonistas.' It always comes back to Clinton, doesn't it? Were these the same Clintonistas that supposedly came up with all this 'evidence' about Iraq's WMD program?
I see. Even Al Baradei says that, huh? That settles it. Hey, I think even Olmert says it too!
Yeah, I don't think anybody was too worried about their actual military. We 'routed' them in 3 days in 1991.
We would have no problem with their actual military either. Not even close to the point, though.
Hard to do when you don't have a 'crude nuke.' Didin't we just go down this road in 2003? I mean, wtf, have we learned nothing from our Iraq adventure?
yep- scary just like the elusive bogeyman
Like the religious fanatics in Pakistan having nukes? We don't seem to have a problem with that. By most experts account, anyways, Iran is not close to having a nuke. You know better, I guess. Even if they were develop one somewhere down the road, what possible incentive would they have to use it preemptively, only to see their whole country disappear.
And do you really believe that Israel, or us for that matter, could effectively bomb their muclear sites to the point of rendering them disabled? Naive and stupid.
I think he was assured by an American envoy that we would not get involved.
No, he wouldn't still be there.
I ruminate, on occasion.
Of course not. The UN is totally worthless in every way, but they're the first thing people like you run to for justification on Iraq. 'They disobeyed 914 UN resolutions.' lol
Exactly.
Hell, that has NEVER been a problem for THIS administration. They can prove anything, with or without "proof."
I would assume, in fact, that if we did currently get him by some kind of attack, that there would be plenty of commentary from this administration that it was tied to Iran, since Bin Laden is a (non) dead issue to these people, and Saddam is long gone. Have to keep that target moving, ya know.
turns out the iranians have put out fake photos of their vaunted missile launch....
http://news.google.com/news?sourcei...1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
heres the real photo
thats some military ya got there,spy....and godzilla?.....he`s holed up in a senior citizens home in ft.lauderdale.......rumor has it he`s in worse financial shape than ed mcmahon...
no wonder they want nukes....
http://news.google.com/news?sourcei...1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
heres the real photo
thats some military ya got there,spy....and godzilla?.....he`s holed up in a senior citizens home in ft.lauderdale.......rumor has it he`s in worse financial shape than ed mcmahon...
no wonder they want nukes....
Last edited:
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
turns out the iranians have put out fake photos of their vaunted missile launch....
http://news.google.com/news?sourcei...1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
heres the real photo
thats some military ya got there,spy....and godzilla?.....he`s holed up in a senior citizens home in ft.lauderdale.......rumor has it he`s in worse financial shape than ed mcmahon...
no wonder they want nukes....
These are pictures of the USS Stark after a cruise missile attack off Iraq.
37 dead. Sunburn's twice as large and twice as fast.
Iran missiles prove U.S. shield not needed: Russia
By James Kilner
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Friday Iran's missile tests showed there is no military justification for U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in eastern Europe because Tehran's rockets cannot travel that far.
Iran this week test-fired missiles which it said were capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.
Washington says the shield in Europe is needed to defend against any missile attacks from countries such as Iran. Russia says the U.S. plans are a direct threat to its security.
"The tests in Iran have only confirmed that Iran at the moment has rockets with a range of up to 1,243 miles. That confirms what we have said before," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a news briefing.
"That is that the current idea of deploying a U.S. ... missile shield in Europe, with its parameters, is not needed to monitor and react to these particular rockets with this range."
"We continue to be convinced of the invented nature of discussions about the Iranian rocket threat as a motive for the deployment of the missile shield in Europe," Lavrov said after talks with Jordanian Foreign Minister Salaheddin Al-Bashir.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1172171420080711
By James Kilner
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Friday Iran's missile tests showed there is no military justification for U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in eastern Europe because Tehran's rockets cannot travel that far.
Iran this week test-fired missiles which it said were capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.
Washington says the shield in Europe is needed to defend against any missile attacks from countries such as Iran. Russia says the U.S. plans are a direct threat to its security.
"The tests in Iran have only confirmed that Iran at the moment has rockets with a range of up to 1,243 miles. That confirms what we have said before," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a news briefing.
"That is that the current idea of deploying a U.S. ... missile shield in Europe, with its parameters, is not needed to monitor and react to these particular rockets with this range."
"We continue to be convinced of the invented nature of discussions about the Iranian rocket threat as a motive for the deployment of the missile shield in Europe," Lavrov said after talks with Jordanian Foreign Minister Salaheddin Al-Bashir.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1172171420080711
[Gary North, cut from most recent opinion]
The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities.
I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back.
This could mean you.
If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question.
Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can't point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment."
Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It's yellow, but it's golden.
This tells me that the overflight countries' leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat.
American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions.
Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing.
Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light.
Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush's threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don't bite. They merely squawk.
Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it's important?
TIMETABLES
Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration's withdrawal: January 20, 2009.
This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq's government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built?
As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran's surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It's not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around.
Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous.
The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun.
Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem.
That's why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran.
This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is?
We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing.
We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany's V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat.
The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is na?ve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not.
CONCLUSION
When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do.
I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less.
Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading.
I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn't mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won't bet all of my money on this. I don't think you should either.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north640.html
The American public, which has been fed lies about Israel for forty years, does not, yet, grasp the implications of our foreign-policy-by-AIPAC.
The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities.
I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back.
This could mean you.
If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question.
Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can't point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment."
Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It's yellow, but it's golden.
This tells me that the overflight countries' leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat.
American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions.
Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing.
Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light.
Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush's threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don't bite. They merely squawk.
Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it's important?
TIMETABLES
Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration's withdrawal: January 20, 2009.
This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq's government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built?
As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran's surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It's not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around.
Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous.
The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun.
Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem.
That's why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran.
This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is?
We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing.
We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany's V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat.
The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is na?ve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not.
CONCLUSION
When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do.
I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less.
Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading.
I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn't mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won't bet all of my money on this. I don't think you should either.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north640.html
The American public, which has been fed lies about Israel for forty years, does not, yet, grasp the implications of our foreign-policy-by-AIPAC.
[Another solid piece from Buchanan]
No More Blank Checks for War
by Patrick J. Buchanan
After the assassination of the archduke in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Austria got from Kaiser Wilhelm a "blank cheque" to punish Serbia. Germany would follow whatever course its ally chose to take. Austria chose war on Serbia. And World War I resulted.
On March 31, 1939, Britain gave a blank check to Poland in its dispute with Germany over Danzig, a town of 350,000 Germans. Should war come, Britain would fight on Poland's side.
Poland refused to negotiate, Adolf Hitler attacked, and Britain declared war. After six years, the British Empire collapsed. Germany was burnt to ashes. Poland entered the slave quarters of Joseph Stalin's empire.
Lesson: No great power should ever give to a small ally or client state a blank check to drag it into war.
This raises the question: Has President Bush given Israel a blank check?
A year ago, Israel attacked and smashed an alleged nuclear reactor site in Syria. In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers, toward Greece in a simulated attack. The planes flew 1,450 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program we will attack it."
Ehud Olmert returned from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis, "George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term."
Is Israel bluffing, or in dead earnest?
For while Israel can do damage to Iran, she cannot defeat Iran without using nuclear weapons. But any attack Israel launched against Iran would require U.S. complicity, and any Israeli war with Iran would almost certainly require the United States to do most of the fighting to win or end it.
Thus, if George Bush does not want war with Iran, with two U.S. wars already, he must inform the Israelis in unequivocal terms that the United States opposes any Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, and will not assist but denounce any such attack.
If Bush believes war with Iran is vital to U.S. security, he should make that case to Congress. To allow Israel to start a war we do not want would be an abdication of his duty as president.
Clearly, among the reasons Israel conducted its dress rehearsal for war was to maximize pressure on Iran to halt enriching uranium. Bush may well have welcomed the added pressure.
But as the Iranians have insisted, they are entitled, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed and Israel did not, to enrich uranium for fuel in power plants. Tehran has declared it will not be the only nation to surrender its legal rights under the NPT. And in response to the Israeli military exercises, Tehran conducted its own missile-firing exercises this week.
If neither side yields, confrontation is inevitable. Perhaps soon.
For we are only four months from the election, and Israel is pawing the ground to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Is this Bush's back door to war with Iran?
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, in Israel a week ago, returned to say a "third front" in the Middle East, with Iran, would be "extremely stressful" to U.S. forces.
He is saying that U.S. ground forces probably cannot now cope with another war, with a nation three times as large as Iraq.
Asked about Israel taking unilateral action, Mullen replied, "This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable." But Mullen is not the president. What did Bush tell Olmert? Does Israel have a green light, a yellow light or a red light?
Should Israel attack Iran and Bush deny complicity, he would no more be believed than were Britain and France in 1956. Then, the Israelis stormed into Sinai, and Britain and France said they were intervening to separate the warring nations and secure the Suez Canal. Outraged, Ike ordered the British, French and Israelis alike to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did.
President Bush must step up to the plate.
If he believes sanctions are not succeeding and Iran's nuclear program must be halted, he should go to Congress for authority to neutralize the facilities. If he has not so concluded, he should tell Israel it is not to start a war that U.S. airmen, sailors, soldiers and Marines will have to finish.
America needs to restore that absolute freedom of action in matters of war and peace she once had, before entering the skein of entangling alliances that now encumber the republic.
No ally, no client state, should ever be allowed to drag America into a war she has not chosen, constitutionally, to fight.
No more blank checks for any nation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan90.html
No More Blank Checks for War
by Patrick J. Buchanan
After the assassination of the archduke in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Austria got from Kaiser Wilhelm a "blank cheque" to punish Serbia. Germany would follow whatever course its ally chose to take. Austria chose war on Serbia. And World War I resulted.
On March 31, 1939, Britain gave a blank check to Poland in its dispute with Germany over Danzig, a town of 350,000 Germans. Should war come, Britain would fight on Poland's side.
Poland refused to negotiate, Adolf Hitler attacked, and Britain declared war. After six years, the British Empire collapsed. Germany was burnt to ashes. Poland entered the slave quarters of Joseph Stalin's empire.
Lesson: No great power should ever give to a small ally or client state a blank check to drag it into war.
This raises the question: Has President Bush given Israel a blank check?
A year ago, Israel attacked and smashed an alleged nuclear reactor site in Syria. In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers, toward Greece in a simulated attack. The planes flew 1,450 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program we will attack it."
Ehud Olmert returned from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis, "George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term."
Is Israel bluffing, or in dead earnest?
For while Israel can do damage to Iran, she cannot defeat Iran without using nuclear weapons. But any attack Israel launched against Iran would require U.S. complicity, and any Israeli war with Iran would almost certainly require the United States to do most of the fighting to win or end it.
Thus, if George Bush does not want war with Iran, with two U.S. wars already, he must inform the Israelis in unequivocal terms that the United States opposes any Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, and will not assist but denounce any such attack.
If Bush believes war with Iran is vital to U.S. security, he should make that case to Congress. To allow Israel to start a war we do not want would be an abdication of his duty as president.
Clearly, among the reasons Israel conducted its dress rehearsal for war was to maximize pressure on Iran to halt enriching uranium. Bush may well have welcomed the added pressure.
But as the Iranians have insisted, they are entitled, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed and Israel did not, to enrich uranium for fuel in power plants. Tehran has declared it will not be the only nation to surrender its legal rights under the NPT. And in response to the Israeli military exercises, Tehran conducted its own missile-firing exercises this week.
If neither side yields, confrontation is inevitable. Perhaps soon.
For we are only four months from the election, and Israel is pawing the ground to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Is this Bush's back door to war with Iran?
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, in Israel a week ago, returned to say a "third front" in the Middle East, with Iran, would be "extremely stressful" to U.S. forces.
He is saying that U.S. ground forces probably cannot now cope with another war, with a nation three times as large as Iraq.
Asked about Israel taking unilateral action, Mullen replied, "This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable." But Mullen is not the president. What did Bush tell Olmert? Does Israel have a green light, a yellow light or a red light?
Should Israel attack Iran and Bush deny complicity, he would no more be believed than were Britain and France in 1956. Then, the Israelis stormed into Sinai, and Britain and France said they were intervening to separate the warring nations and secure the Suez Canal. Outraged, Ike ordered the British, French and Israelis alike to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did.
President Bush must step up to the plate.
If he believes sanctions are not succeeding and Iran's nuclear program must be halted, he should go to Congress for authority to neutralize the facilities. If he has not so concluded, he should tell Israel it is not to start a war that U.S. airmen, sailors, soldiers and Marines will have to finish.
America needs to restore that absolute freedom of action in matters of war and peace she once had, before entering the skein of entangling alliances that now encumber the republic.
No ally, no client state, should ever be allowed to drag America into a war she has not chosen, constitutionally, to fight.
No more blank checks for any nation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan90.html
These are pictures of the USS Stark after a cruise missile attack off Iraq.
37 dead. Sunburn's twice as large and twice as fast.
1)they were in neutral waters...
2)their counter-measures either weren`t armed or were in stand-by mode....
3)it was during the iran/iraq war(a war in which we were actually aiding iraq) and they weren`t expecting an attack...
4)they had no air cover...
thats not to say that in an iranian/u.s. conflict we`d go unscathed.....but,unless we approach such a conflict with our recent politically correct/hands tied behind your back manner,iran gets beaten like a rented mule...
an attack such as the one on the stark would lead me to believe that he response would be swift and profound...
and if theres an israeli attack on iran,i guarantee we`ll know about it and be prepared for a response...
thank me very much...
Weasle, I would hope we would go in with the full force and power of the greatest military in the history of the world. But based on how these Neocons are set on nation building I fear it wil be another Iraq. It has nothing to do with being PC it has everything to do with nation building.
........................................................
I said this two months ago.
I can find it if you need me to.
This is one of the Big Ones you were talking about. It takes thinking outside the box.
Israel bombs Iran , US gets pulled in , Bush doesn't need to notify Congress or get approval, because the proverbial shit will have hit the fan.
Someone needs to stop this lunatic Bush and Cheney.
Bush and Cheney should not be the ones to be involved in any way with solving this Iranian problem. They are warmongers to the hilt.
And I would definately not trust McCain. Holy shitballs.
Go OBAMA !
