US to attack Iran? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 08-31-2007, 08:14 AM

I hope one thing is clear: you're better off getting your information on Muslims from Muslims instead of Western media.
The media would have us believe:

Quote:

Radical Islam is on our doorstep, in your hometown, they are patient, and there’s a good chance we’ll be hearing from them soon in our schools, shopping centers, subways, and hospitals.

Why? Because they want us to fear the boogeyman, and they say who the boogeyman is. They might as well have said "There's a black guy on your back porch!!" or "Your housekeeper, Maria Gonzales, is stealing your jewelry!" It's intended to demonize a race of members of a religion. Muslims are on the whole wonderful people. Radical Islam isn't blind hatred or irrational murder.

ottopilot · 08-31-2007, 11:54 AM

roachboy · 08-31-2007, 12:37 PM

but it is self-evident that the government of iran is not monolithic either.
if you want to talk about iran, then let's talk about iran. there's no need for the Giant Framework---i mean to even get to this yourself, otto, you have had to push through the language of your own post (no. 22 i think)

so on the one hand, we have this term "radical islam"...which i personally think useless, but which we can i suspect agree to disagree about and still shift the discussion.

and i think there is an interesting conversation to be had about iran, too.

i am not sure if starting a different thread would be better or if it would work jsut as well to collectively push reset on this one and redirect it. that means leaving 22 and the discussion it engendered behind at this point and refocussing on iran.

i am busy with other stuff at the moment, so will leave it to you, otto, if you dont mind, to choose how we go about this.

btw: this is just a suggestion--i am not trying to shut down anything, more looking for a bit more frame clarity so we can have a different kind of debate/discussion.

guyy · 08-31-2007, 01:51 PM

I think part of the reason why we're hearing about a Global Iranian Consipiracy is because of the success of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is quite powerful and a thorn in the side of Israel and the US. Hezbollah managed to drive Israel out once and stared them down again last summer. For this reason (and no doubt others as well) Hezbollah bugs the hell out of Lebanese Christians, Israel, and, by extension, its neocon allies in the Bush regime. Yes, Hezbollah is backed by Iran, but it would be a mistake to assume that it is powerful merely because it has Iranian support. It's powerful because it has the support of a good portion of the Lebanese population. It has that support because it runs hospitals, schools, and all sorts of social programmes for an underserved majority. This is the kind of thing that the folks who run the US state usually have trouble understanding.

Baraka_Guru · 08-31-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I hope one thing is clear: you're better off getting your information on Muslims from Muslims instead of Western media. [...] they want us to fear the boogeyman, and they say who the boogeyman is.

Yes....the lead-up to the war in Iraq should make for excellent case studies in media classes.

Rekna · 09-02-2007, 07:10 AM

Fox news is continuing the trend.... and this time the defense department is listening...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295529,00.html

Quote:

Report: Pentagon Has 3-Day Plan to Knock Out Iran's Military

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert in Sunday’s edition in the Times of London.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear program and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Rekna · 09-11-2007, 06:32 PM

Apparently we are now drawing up battle plans....

Can Bush go to war with them without authorization? Will people stand up and say no to this neocon regime?

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-11-2007, 08:54 PM

First off battle plans are already there, they are called contingency(sp) plans... as noted on this forum before we have contingency plans drawn up for every country including Canada.

Bush cannot go to "war" with them, only Congress can approve war. Since Vietnam Congress has reigned in executive power over the military, were they have pretty strong over sight.

So if you are asking if Bush can pull another Iraq in Iran, absolutely not. I'm sure in theory Bush could send some missles, some planes, have some cruisers blow shit up, hell there might even be a window for a possible ground incursion. But without congressional oversight, at most he has a 90 day window, and I sure that I am swinging high saying that.

Charlatan · 09-11-2007, 10:05 PM

Going to war with Iran would probably top the list of most stupid things the Bush administration has ever done (if they do it).

Bush and co. had the opportunity back in 2002 to actually support the movement away form Radical Fundamentalism in Iran. It would have meant opening up an embassy and normalizing relations with Iran. It would have meant speaking up for the many moderate muslims in Iran who voice their opinions in the newspapers and other media.

At present there are three factions... the moderates, who favour democratic reform and modernization of Iran. The conservatives who are largely made up of business people, who just want things to work smoothly. The fundamentalists, who are at the core of the revolution and represent the "sick" side of Iran...

The numbers of Reformers and Fundamentalists are about equal. All that needs to be done is swing the support of the Conservatives over to the Reformers. Back in 2002, before the current regime was elected, this would have more doable than it is now. But I believe it's still possible.

Iran is a democracy, perhaps in name only but a democracy nonetheless. Instead of talk of the "axis of evil" and rattling of sabres, more work needs to be done to build bridges with Iran.

After all, it was with Iranian support that the US secured the support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It was with Iranian support that the US rebuilt the power structures in Kabul. There are moderates in Iran that can turn the tide (even now) but they need support. Normalizing relations with Iran would go a long way to creating that support.

Racnad · 09-12-2007, 06:46 AM

On "spreading democaracy:"

One of the "reasons of the week" for invading Iraq was to introduce democracy to the Middle East. The irony is that while Iran is not exactly an American-style democracy, it is more democratic most countries in the middle east, including several US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. When visitng Iran for a documentary last year Ted Keppel noted that in the Iranian media, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is ridiculed as much as George Bush is in the American media.

On Iran and nukes:

If we don't want more countries to develop nuclear weapons, the worst thing to do is to go on Iraqi-style invasions. In international relations, nuclear weapons are the equilvelent of a .44 Magnum on your hip that says "don't fuck with us." No country that possesses nuclear weapons was ever been invaded, and countries with no nukes know that well. Would Osama bin Laden have been able to hide in rural Pakistan for 6 years if Pakistan didn't have nukes? Remember what Bush said after 9/11: "We will not make distinctions between terrorists and the countries who harbor them." Well, that doesn't apply to rural Pakistan becuase the biggest danger in the world is not the prospect of North Korea or Iran, it is Pakistan falling into the kind of instability that Iraq is in now. Who knows who would get control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal???

On Invading Iran:

I recently heard an inteview with former UN ambassador John Bolton. He claimed that there are large numbers of young Iranians who don't liketheir government and would welcome and support Amercian invasion to remove the Iranian governent.

Not only does this argument sound disturbingly familiar, it is comletely absurd. Imagine if a foreign power such as China thought "Look at all the Americans who don't like George W. Bush. If we invaded America and removed George Bush, all the people who don't like Bush would be greatful and supportive of us."

Completely absurd. Young Iranians may very well want change in their country, but like Amercans, we they'd want to do it themselves.

Rekna · 09-12-2007, 07:06 AM

Mojo, There are lots of laws which state what the President can and can't do legally but it hasn't stopped him before. Bush could simply say he is chasing Al'Queda and doesn't need congress's approval because he already got it for the "war on terror". I really hope he doesn't put us into another war and end up breaking our bank.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2007, 08:41 AM

Executive orders can only work off pre-existing law. In the case of the "war on terror" everything Bush has done has been done in the framework of congressional law whether it was the establishment of a new cabinent position, the patriot act, guantamo bay, FISA courts, military action in Afghanistan, etc.

As it stands this country isn't operated by one person/position. I'm stating this hypothetically (and not really attempting to argue the point further so as not to thread jack), but if Bush is doing something illegally it is congress's fault along with the judiciary (not saying he did or didn't) for not checking his power and reigning him in. In regards to military conflict directly there are checks and balances, like in the past with the War Powers resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) which establishes:

-regular consultation with the congress, and if possible consultation preceeding any military action, which would leave the door open for say a reactionary mission, but not a full scale invasion.
-a dossier submitted to the speaker of the house and pres. of the senate 48 hours following action stating necessity/circumstances, constitutional authority in which action was invoked and what legislative law gave made framework, and scope/duration of the mission
-Military action only has a 60 day window (where I quoted 90 earlier) following a written report to congress ^^. The operation can only continue by legislative authority (read declaring war or specific law), if congress is unable to convene as a result of conflict, or a possibly 1-time 30-day extension if "military necessity" requires it. Any concurrent congressional resolution can put an immediate end to action.
(The law in its entirity http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...rs/33/toc.html)

roachboy · 09-12-2007, 08:57 AM

the fait accompli approach--the "hello congress, we have attacked iran whaddya gonna do?" way--would require an Event. so while i think mojo's right---it is within the purview of the administration to launch an action without congressional consent---politically such an act would require a pretext. that you can lead vignettes in the press every few weeks that seem geared around preparing the ground for the Event, so far there hasnt been one. the reason for the Event requirement is that the action would have to be pitched as reactive.

i think it's unnecessary because there is near-perfect symmetry between the situations of the bush people and ahmadinejad right now: two politically weak reactionaries propping themselves up politically through exercises in sustained dickwaving in the general direction of the Enemy. but perhaps this symmetry offends the finely tuned aesthetic sensibilities of the few remaining neocons, who may well feel that this kind of situation can only really work when it is not obvious.

Elphaba · 09-12-2007, 02:59 PM

Mojo, Bush believes that the congressional resolution in support of a preemptive attack on Iraq, applies to *any* source of "terror," that he deems a potential threat to the US. BushCo has been parading the various pretexts that roachboy mentioned for months now. Add to that the recent "accidental" movement of nukes to the Air Force base that is the launch point to the Middle East and we have an interesting alignment of dots to connect.

Military and Intelligence insiders believe that the nuke movements were leaked to the Military Times, which forced the Air Force to come up with the "accident" excuse. Had there actually been an accidental movement of nukes, which is considered virtually impossible, we would never have heard of it from the military. I am further disturbed by the well publicized Air Force grounding of all aircraft on 9/14, to address this accident. It is absurd just on the face of it. The pilots of the planes did not attach nukes to the underside of their wings, and I can't imagine anyone else "checking out" a few nukes from the nuke library. Something seriously stinks in this whole story.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2007, 03:23 PM

Why would the nukes re-alignment prove anything? I have no idea how the nuke contengency works, and I'm not assuming you are wrong, but why point to that as a point of escalation? The US has been stepping up its presence in the gulf for months and running drills and war games right off the coast. Also I'm not sure 6 nukes (thats the number right) is much of a threat to the Iranian regime, and at any rate I cannot fathom that any elected official, civilian, or military personnal would think NUKING Iran would be a smart action. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there is some uber-ridiculous blow hard who says its a legitimate option, but Bush is not that stupid (although I have been wrong in the past).

As for what Bush thinks the Iraqi resolution applies to or not, put it all on the congress at this point. The dems need to show that they are not a bunch of politicking gabroni's and at least attempt to reign in executive power if the threat of military action in Iran is so tangible. If anything happens its as much their fault as it is his.

pai mei · 09-12-2007, 04:09 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6992249.stm

Quote:

Gen David Petraeus, top US commander in Iraq, and US envoy to Baghdad Ryan Crocker both cited evidence of Iranian involvement in attacks on US troops.

Elphaba · 09-12-2007, 04:18 PM

Mojo, I didn't claim a proof but a data point worthy of contemplation. Bush has refused to take nukes off the table in the war planning associated with Iran. That is another data point. There has been a congressional effort to limit the resolution to Iraq only, but that requires agreement from the executive.

You are correct that nearly everyone considers this an insane move, but Bush and Cheney consider it an option. We have *all* been wrong about Bush's motives in the past, not just you or other conservatives. I'm suspicious because we were so easily manipulated before, and I think that is a necessary position from which to start today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6992249.stm

This is the necessary event that roachboy refers to. Why is there complete silence about the far greater Saudi involvement in killing our soldiers?

Charlatan · 09-12-2007, 04:40 PM

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's citizens and yet there was no talk of attacking Saudi Arabia. Saudi money goes to support terrorism around the region and yet no talk of attacking Saudia Arabia. The country is not even close to a democracy and yet, despite talk of trying to bolster the growth of democracy in the region, there is no talk of attacking Saudia Arabia.

Iran, a democracy (perhaps in name only), with a relatively free-speaking press, who had no citizens involved in 9/11 and with no readily apparent ties to Al Qaeda is not only in the Axis of Evil but slated for invasion.

What it looks like to me is that the US would rather support despots who keep the oil flowing than burgeoning democracies.

The fact is democracies are messier than despots. They don't always go in the direction you want them to. BUT with increased trade and increased diplomacy, investment in education that counters what the mullas spout. There is a more realistic chance of changing the course of the region.

The real thing Bush should have been spending trillions in treasure on was breaking Americas and the Middle East's dependency on oil. So long as the Fundamentalists in Iran have oil money to pay off their cronies and smooth over the inefficiencies of their rule, they will hold onto power.

The same is to be said of places like Libya and Saudi Arabia... thanks to oil money, their despots can afford to buy peace within their boarders.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2007, 05:09 PM

Charlatan so much wrong with you post. In a short response

-15 Saudi Nationals do not equate to a problem with the Saudi government or state sponsored terrorism.

Iran Quds unit is a branch of the revolutionary guard and directly associated with the government of IRan, just like Hezbollah a terrorist organization with long standing terrorist involvement against America and the west.

Iran being a democracy is a farce. They were moving towards something a few years ago under Khatami, but since he has been out of power the overlord/guardian council stepped in and has an effective strangle hold on the politics. There is nothing democratic when there are not free and open elections.

As noted in other threads it is not so easy to make a comparison between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The house of Saud has a delicate deal with Sharian Islamofacists whom you so readily speak of, they walk a fine line, and as brought up in other threads I would rather have the House of Saud in power then another hardline Muslim theocratic regime.

Not bringing up direct figures, but America has little dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, in fact we only get some 20-25% of our oil from the region.

Willravel · 09-12-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

-15 Saudi Nationals do not equate to a problem with the Saudi government or state sponsored terrorism.

Based on this statement, I find your understanding of Saudi involvement in terrorism lacking.

Waaay back in 2004, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham published a book called "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBIA, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror" where he plainly states that the Bush white house deliberately blocked investigations into the Saudi Arabian government and royal families. One such example is in the report issued by a joint House-Senate intelligence committee back in 2002 in which 27 pages were blacked out by the white house. In those pages, Saudi links to 9/11 were outlined, backed by credible intelligence. Republican Senator Richard Shelby confirmed the allegations.

All of this came out way back during (and by) the Kerry campaign.
http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchi...ves/001265.php

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2007, 06:49 PM

I am not refuting the issue of Saudi ties to terrorism, I just think trying to use the fact that 15 hijackers being of Saudi origin equates to its own issue and in so far as 9/11 and governmental support is moot.

If you knew anything about OBL and Al Qaeda you would know the roots of his fatwa. Remember desert storm? Osama went to the Saud family and offered to handle the situation with Iraq, much the same way he did with Afghanistan, they had the Americans do it. What happened then? OBL actively worked to topple the Saudi regime and was expelled. I think it is a safe bet that as far as state sponsored terrorism is concerned OBL and Al Qaeda have no ties with the Saudi government.

Now, it is a rich kingdom with a lot of rich mullahs who don't like the west, but that is an issue of the theocratic-societal underpinnings in my book and less an issue of the government. At the same time I could bring in the whole Israeli issue and Saudi Arabia, but that is a whole nother can o' worms.

Willravel · 09-12-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I am not refuting the issue of Saudi ties to terrorism, I just think trying to use the fact that 15 hijackers being of Saudi origin equates to its own issue and in so far as 9/11 and governmental support is moot.

Not necessarily. When you combine that fact with the fact that Saudis have been behind many, many terrorist attacks on US and ally targets... a pattern forms. It's clear, from these alone, that Saudi Arabia is the source of most "terrorists" (violent muslim extremists). That's hardly a moot point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

If you knew anything about OBL and Al Qaeda you would know the roots of his fatwa. Remember desert storm? Osama went to the [Saudi] family and offered to handle the situation with Iraq, much the same way he did with Afghanistan, they had the Americans do it. What happened then? OBL actively worked to topple the Saudi regime and was expelled. I think it is a safe bet that as far as state sponsored terrorism is concerned OBL and Al Qaeda have no ties with the Saudi government.

So because one terrorist that worked for the Saudis for over a decade finally turns on them Saudi Arabia has no ties to terrorism? That makes absolutely no sense. Besides that, as I said above, the Saudi government and royal families helped to finance 9/11 according to official intelligence reports that were hidden by the Bush administration. Why? Simple. The Bush family and Saudis have long-standing ties through oil, and the financing of 9/11 was tied in with friends of the Bush family. These are top ranking government officials and royalty.

Racnad · 09-13-2007, 07:19 AM

In trying to associate Iraq to 9/11 Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have pointed out that prior to 9/11 that some members of Al Quada did visit Iraq or resided in Iraq, or met with Iraqi officials (as did Rumsfeld in that famous photograph). If that is the standard for estanblishing responsibility, then you can make a much stronger case of Saudi Arabia being reponsible for 911. (By that standard you can also say the US was involved because the hijackers spend a lot of time in the US attending flight school - I'm sure some of the 911Truth people are arguing that).

Not only were most of the hikjackers Saudi, Osama bin Laden is as well, and he has many relatives who are prominent in Saudi society. I don't beleive that the governemnt was involved in anyway, but many prominent Saudis are sympathetic to Al Quada.

To understand Iran you have to look at Iranian history for the past 50 years. Following WWII, Iran had a democratically elected leader who was overthrown by the UK/US for starting to nationalize the oil industry. The Shaw was installed, who ran the country as dictatorship using a Secret Police.

But the Shaw played ball with the oil companies, and was also anti-Soviet, firmly on the US side throughout the cold war. (An Iran friendly to the Soviet Union would have given the Soviets access to warm water port - the Persian Gulf - and it was VERY important to the US and NATO that this NOT happen.

In 1980, the show was overtthrown, and the US embassy in Terhan was invaded and occupied, with 50 US citizens were held as hostages. In international relations, this is a HUGE sin, equivelent to an invasion.

The current state of affairs between the US and Iran is a result of that bad blood. Iran is mad at the US for backing the Shaw's dictatorship and secret police, and the US is still sore about the violation of the US embassy (the generation of Cheney/Rumsfeld were working in governement at that time and remember it well).

Americans should also keep in mind that civilization existed in Iran/Persia when Europeans were jusy tribes of hunter/gatherers. The Iranians are very aware and proud of the their cultural history, and the don't want to play second fiddle to anyone. The idea that young Iranians would welcome a foreign invasion to remove their governement is abasurd as the notion that Amercans who don't like Bush would welcome a foreign invasion to remove Bush. If you think Iraq is bad, a US war with Iran would be much, much worse.

The solution would be for the US and Iraq to agree that the past is past and work together to move forward.

Elphaba · 09-13-2007, 04:19 PM

Fox News isn't the only one selling a war with Iran. Alexis Debat, a recently fired "consultant" for ABC news has been inventing his "facts." This is late breaking news, but google his name with ABC to get what is known so far.

one google link

Quote:

UPDATED (again): The disgraced ABC consultant and the push for war in Iran

There's a huge new media scandal breaking this morning, and the headline so far -- that a much-used consultant to ABC News published a phony interview with Barak Obama -- may well be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The news about now ex-ABC consultant Alexis Debat is just dribbling out, but I'm surprised people haven't been connecting the dots. ...snip

Simply put, Debat -- a former French defense official who now works at the (no, you can't make these things up) Nixon Center -- has also been a leading source in pounding the drumbeat for war in Iran, and directly linked to some bizarre stories -- reported on ABC's widely watched news shows, and nowhere else -- that either ratcheted up fears of terrorism or that could have stoked new tensions between Washington and Tehran. ...snip

The report came in the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times of London, right after rumors swept through Washington that aides to Vice President Dick Cheney were planning to use friendly news outlets -- including several others owned by Murdoch -- to whip up popular opinion for attacking Iran.

This story appeared in Murdoch's Times on Sept. 2, 2007:

"THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. ...snip

If you look at the stories on which ABC News has acknowledged Debat's work, many of the reports came from left field. Do you remember this report from June, on which ABC has apparently acknowledged Debat was a consultant?

"Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions."

How did ABC get this alarmist video -- at a time when government officials in Washington seemed to be amping up fears over new terrorist attacks at home, going into the congressional debate over reauthorizing the government's eavesdropping program and maintaining troop levels in Iraq? Did Debat play any role?

Ross acknowleged yesterday that Debat was a source on this controversial report regarding U.S. efforts in Iran, back in April:

"A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials."

Debat has also reportly helped ABC analyze terrorism inside Saudi Arabia, and provided his "expert" commentary and information on stories ranging from the 2005 London bombings to the trial of his fellow Frenchman, al-Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui. His work should cause a re-examination of all of ABC News' investigative reporting on both terrorism and Iran over the last couple of years, because -- wittingly or unwittingly -- no other network has better served the Bush agenda in the Middle East. ...snip

He is either a self-serving media whore, or our new Judith Miller. Either way, we are once again being sold a bill of goods and this time it is Iran.

Willravel · 09-13-2007, 04:43 PM

Excellent article, Elphaba.

Elphaba · 09-13-2007, 04:53 PM

Thank you, but where is our host? I am a poor substitute for digging up important news. I miss him.

Willravel · 09-24-2007, 02:52 PM

I just got through an interesting article from the Times that took a look at the "Wipe Israel off the map" comment by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. It's a good read, and I suggest people give it a look.

Quote:

Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: June 11, 2006

EVER since he spoke at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been known for one statement above all. As translated by news agencies at the time, it was that Israel "should be wiped off the map." Iran's nuclear program and sponsorship of militant Muslim groups are rarely mentioned without reference to the infamous map remark.

Here, for example, is R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, recently: "Given the radical nature of Iran under Ahmadinejad and its stated wish to wipe Israel off the map of the world, it is entirely unconvincing that we could or should live with a nuclear Iran."

But is that what Mr. Ahmadinejad said? And if so, was it a threat of war? For months, a debate among Iran specialists over both questions has been intensifying. It starts as a dispute over translating Persian but quickly turns on whether the United States (with help from Israel) is doing to Iran what some believe it did to Iraq — building a case for military action predicated on a faulty premise.

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently laid out the case this way: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The 'page of time' phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon."

Mr. Steele added that neither Khomeini nor Mr. Ahmadinejad suggested that Israel's "vanishing" was imminent or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about. "But the propaganda damage was done," he wrote, "and Western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews."

If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate.

But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again.

Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."

The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad's use of "occupying regime of Jerusalem" rather than "Israel."

To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action. Professor Cole, for example, says: "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."

But to others, "occupying regime" signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president's rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue "does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution" and has called Israel "a stain" on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel's existence, Iran would go along.

When combined with Iran's longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad's refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel.

So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/we...rssnyt&emc=rss

I had suspected that the comment was too convenient from the beginning. The current US administration is scratching for any little tidbit to excuse attacking Iran, and Ahmadinejad comes out and says "How does everyone feel about nuking Israel?". No way, jose. Obviously, Iran and Israel aren't the best of friends, as a matter of fact I suspect that the word 'hate' wouldn't be out of place when describing their mutual feelings, but attacking Israel, a country already armed with nuclear weapons and the largest military in the ME is tantamount to suicide even leaving alone the fact that Bush is trying to make Iran the new Iraq.

Thoughts?

Elphaba · 09-24-2007, 04:05 PM

I expressed an opinion here and another politics forum a year or so ago that Ahmadinejad's public statements have been conveniently mistranslated for our consumption. If you really want to rile the majority of American's, inferring the intention of a literal attack against Israel is the way to go. You can be certain that I was accused of being far worse than a "looney liberal" for the opinion.

Another thought I expressed was that his discourse on the holocaust was also not to be taken literally, but as rhetorical device based upon logical principals. IF, the holocaust occurred (which of course, it did), THEN those that took the lives and property of the European Jews must return that property to the survivors. Ergo, if the holocaust occurred, why were the European Jews given the property of the Palestinians? That question is the fundamental basis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East and has earned the "West" so many enemies within the region.

highthief · 09-26-2007, 08:07 AM

It's funny - all the wingnuts protesting Ahmadinejad's visit to the US have now strengthened the guy's faltering position in Iran. The Iranian people - who largely don't care for the guy - are now forced into backing him given the howls over both Ahmadinejad personally and Iran in general being broadcast by US and International media.

Plan9 · 09-26-2007, 08:14 AM

Instead of Columbia Uni... they should have sent his ass down to Fort Bragg to speak to the 82nd.

Just so he can piss off the right audience before our next fearless leader sends us off to do something stupid in the desert. Again.

ottopilot · 09-26-2007, 11:19 AM

Rekna · 12-05-2007, 06:27 PM

I wonder if the new NIE will change foxnew's tune.

Of course Bolton just went on fox news demanding hearings into the intelligences agencies for being politicized contrary to the president...

inBOIL · 12-05-2007, 09:51 PM

It seem like this saber-rattling on Bush's part is largely part of a political ploy by the Republican party. He'll talk tough about Iran, and then dick around until the election, not doing anything about it. If the Democrats win the election and things in Iran eventually get better, the Republicans can claim it as the result of Bush's early pressure. If things get worse, it can be blamed on the Democrats' inaction (or actions, whichever the case may be). If a Republican wins the election, they can deal with Iran afterward. This isn't the best way to handle the situation, even from a Republicans-must win-at-any-cost viewpoint, but it is consistent with the kind of rhetoric they've been using the past 8 years.

host · 12-06-2007, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Some believe that Iranian president Ahmadinejad intends to continue provoking the west into a series of compounding confrontations by proxy and direct action. Whether it's intended or not, main-stream media has not picked up on how Ahmadinejad begins most of his commentary (example: at Columbia and the UN) by evoking the prophecy of the "12th Imam"..

..Some believe that the greater importance of Iraq is because of it's religious significance regarding the location of the new Caliphate. Many Muslims do not believe in these prophecies, but the belief of the 12er's is to supposedly usher in the new era of Islam. These are people willing to become martyrs for their beliefs at all cost... a belief or mindset that many assume too hard for Westerners to comprehend.

Just some other things to consider..

FYI (if interested) here's some more background regarding how Iran is prepping their population for "Mahdi Miracles". click to show

ottopilot, I know your post is more than two months old, but I hadn't read it before today. (I was "gone fishing", away from TFP, until more recently.) Here are several observations about your post:

You display a description of "twelvers", you provide no link..
You display a teaser to a hidden "article", clicking on it opens a piece attritbute to "Worldnet Daily", and you provide no link...

Other readers, and you, if you're open to it, should be aware that the material in the Worldnet Daily article is authored by the founder and publisher of worldnet daily, Joseph Farah:

This is the link to your posted (hidden) article. See the bottom part, ommitted along with the link, in your cut & paste:

Quote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=53964
Iran prepares people for 'messiah miracles'
Government broadcasts series on imminent appearance of apocalyptic Islamic 'Mahdi'
Posted: January 27, 2007

<h3>Related special offers:

Keep up to date on messianic activities in Iran by subscribing to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin. </h3>

Here is Joseph Farah, "in action", days before the 2004 presidential election:

Quote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=41169

<img src="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/section.BTL.gif">
Questioning Kerry's patriotism
Posted: October 29, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

It's time to stop pussyfooting around with John Kerry.

This guy is a malapropism away from the presidency.

..He became, arguably, the most important human asset in the public relations arsenal of the Vietnamese Communists..

..<h3>They mean the man so close to becoming commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States is the man who betrayed those forces in 1971 – the man who betrayed his comrades in arms, the man who betrayed his country.

It's time to call a spade a spade. Kerry is a traitor. What he did was treason. Period. End of story.</h3>...

America's mistake was not locking this guy up in the stockades in 1971 and throwing away the key...

...May God open America's eyes next Tuesday.

<h3>Here is Farah's original references to the details in your hidden article, published a year earlier on his subscription website, complete with his hyped claim of actually translating the DVD of Iranian president Ahmadinejad:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48225
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Iran leader's messianic end-times mission
Ahmadinejad raises concerns with mystical visions
Posted: January 6, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: This story is adapted from the latest issue of Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the weekly, online, premium intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND. Annual subscriptions to G2 Bulletin have been cut in half to just $99...

<h3>....According to a transcript of his comments, obtained and translated by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin</h3>, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words ‘in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!" ...

<h3>Here is the same information Farah charged a subscritpion fee to read, freely available a month earlier, with a verbatim translation, on UK channel 4 and days later on PBS. A much more balanced view of Iran is provided by channel 4's Lindsey Hilsum, the apparent source of Joseph Farah's subscription article, and your hidden article, dontcha think?</h3>

Quote:

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...t%20day/159515

International Politics
Preparing for judgement day

Last Modified: 05 Dec 2005
By: Lindsey Hilsum

Mocked for his ugliness, stupidity and smelly socks, President Ahmadinejad is feared for his religious common touch, writes Lindsey Hilsum.

....In one of his first acts after being elected in June, Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, allocated £12m of government funds to enlarge the shrine and mosque. Much to the alarm of those who say Iran is modernising, he frequently refers to the Mahdi, even mentioning him in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September. Asked late last month how Iranians should prepare for the Mahdi, he replied: "They must be pure and devout."

On other occasions, he has talked of reorienting the country's policies to be ready for judgement day, the equivalent of Tony Blair telling Britons to prepare for Christ's second coming.

'A green light around me'

A DVD doing the rounds in exile circles and in Tehran reveals just how mystical Iran's new president is. The scene appears to have been filmed openly, shortly after Ahmadinejad returned from the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, but has not been publicly released.

The president is seen entering a house with Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, a senior conservative figure in Qom...

.."On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad', he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes - Alhamdulillah!"
Iranian holds up a copy of the Koran.

Some are beginning to worry that the president's religiosity, combined with his extreme statements - notably his declaration that Israel should be "wiped off the face of the earth" - are damaging the country. The unspoken fear is that the president is not concerned about international turmoil, because he believes these are the End Times which herald the return of the Mahdi.

"Such talk is for internal consumption," says Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice-president. "But I am worried by the use of these religious slogans." Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, a liberal clergyman in Qom, said: "We should rule the country according to Islamic law, but we should not use religious ideas in politics. Even Ayatollah Khomeini did not believe we should do this."

The previous reformist government trod a fine line, defying western objections to Iran's nuclear programme while simultaneously giving the impression of opening up and becoming more tolerant. In three months, the new president has abandoned subtle diplomacy, sacking reformist ambassadors and replacing practised nuclear negotiators with ideologues.

The men he has nominated as ministers are seen by most Iranian politicians as inexperienced - so far, parliament has rejected three of his nominees for the post of oil minister, leaving the key ministry rudderless...

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...iran_12-9.html
STRONG WORDS FROM IRAN

December 9, 2005

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad has recently drawn international ire by suggesting that the Holocaust never happened and Israel be moved to Europe. This Independent Television News report details the deep influence of Islam on the leader's ruling style and Islam's general impact on politics in Iran.

realaudio

LINDSEY HILSUM: Jamkaran, the shrine to the 12th imam, the Mahdi. The faithful write their prayers. He is their most revered saint, their only hope. One day, they believe, he'll return to Earth through the well which lies under the postbox.

In the meantime, they mail him their wishes. One woman prays the Mahdi will cure her son's opium addiction. In the men's section, more prayers -- a terminally ill child, a daughter still unmarried, unemployment, all the problems of poverty.

Many mullahs say the well and postbox are mere superstition, but thousands of Iranians come to the Jamkaran shrine every Tuesday evening. They're looking for a sign that the Mahdi will return soon.

Now, it seems the Mahdi has become political. Iran's new president says he's a devotee of the 12th imam and of Jamkaran.

One of the first things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did on becoming president was to allocate $17 million to this shrine to the 12th imam, the Mahdi. All Shias believe that one day the Mahdi will return, but some Iranians are beginning to worry that their new president is reorienting the country's politics towards that day.

Darkness falls and still the pilgrims come. They're warding off the evil eye. For eight years, Iran was run by reformists who talked of democracy and disparaged such religiosity, but the new president talks the language of the people.

Some are keen to praise him, provided they don't have to look a woman journalist in the eye.

MAN (Translated): Mr. Ahmadinejad is the only president in 28 years who came with a slogan of bringing justice, saying that he is one of us, cut from the same cloth. He proudly invokes the name of God the merciful, and after that he always prays for the coming of the Mahdi.

LINDSEY HILSUM: He repeated that prayer when he addressed the U.N. General assembly last September, calling on God to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.

A DVD circulating secretly in Tehran and on the Internet shows the president a few days later entering a house with a senior conservative ayatollah...

....<h3>LINDSEY HILSUM: The reformists are horrified that this is the image of Iran being seen around the world.</h3>

REZA KHATAMI, Opposition Leader: In the last eight years, the reformists tried to give a very clear sign to the world that Islam in Iran is not so fanatic. And I think the new government, they want to go back three decades -- and they not only want to go back themselves; they want to pull back the country three decades, so everybody now is worried about the future.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Happy landings. It's the annual day of the Basiij, a paramilitary organization meant to protect the country. Three decades ago, they were the vanguard of the Islamic revolution. Today, they're showing off their skills --

GROUP: Allah akbar!

LINDSEY HILSUM: -- and their air force. This is Mr. Ahmadinejad's power base, his enforcers amongst the population, although it looks as if not everyone's in step.

We caught up with the president and asked what he meant when he said Iranians should prepare for the return of the Mahdi. The reply: "They must be pure and devout."

Mr. Ahmadinejad shocked western governments when he said Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. He used Basiij Day to send another hard-line message to Europe and America, the countries trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology.

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (Translated): You whose arsenals are full of nuclear weapons, you who have used nuclear weapons this century against defenseless people and nations, you who used depleted uranium in the Iraq war, you whose arsenals are full of chemical and biological weapons, who are you to come out and say that you're suspicious of Iran's nuclear program?

LINDSEY HILSUM: A human chain symbolically protecting the country. The reformists fear the president's harsh words will lead to Iran being called up in front of the U.N. Security Council on suspicion of making a nuclear weapon.

MOHAMED ALI ABTAHI (Translated): We want nuclear technology to enhance Iran's standing in the world, but if that means we will have to sacrifice the power we already have because of sanctions or even more extreme measures against us, then in reality we will have gained the technology, but we won't have increased our power and influence at all.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The Bright Future Institute at Qom is devoted to the study of the Mahdi and other Messianic cults, they catalogue the literature and answer questions from the public sent in by e-mail, phone or letter.

The most common query is: How will we know that the Mahdi is about to return?

The children's books they design show what a wonderful world it will be afterwards. But just like fundamentalist Christians, Shias believe the messiah's second coming about be heralded by an apocalypse, war and chaos; they don't say it publicly but some Iranians worry that their new president has no fear of international turmoil, may think it's just a sign from God.

What was your point, ottopilot? Iranian president Ahmadinejad is a politician, and his "base" is deeply religious.

We, as a nation, have so much in common with the religiosity of the people of Iran, I don't know what your point is:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/story.html
Apocalypse Now
Posted Sunday, June 23, 2002; 2:31 a.m. EST

36% of Americans believe that the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally
— TIME/CNN Poll

A TIME/CNN poll finds that more than one-third of Americans say they are paying more attention now to how the news might relate to the end of the world, and have talked about what the Bible has to say on the subject. <b>Fully 59% say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true,<b> and nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the Sept. 11 attack....

Quote:

http://www.johnstoncenter.unc.edu/ev...rrow_moyer.htm
There Is No Tomorrow
By Bill Moyers
The Star Tribune
Sunday 30 January 2005

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress...

... I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That is why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. That is why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations, where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." For them a war with Islam in the Middle East is something to be welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The rapture index - "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity" - now stands at 153.......

...So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? As Glenn Scherer reports in the online environmental journal Grist, millions of Christian fundamentalists believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but hastened as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

We're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half of the members of Congress are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian-right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian Coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who before his recent retirement quoted from the biblical Book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to relish the thought...

<b>Consider that the following is a news article, not an "op-ed" piece.</b> It seems to explain how the U.S. and Israel came to be in the positions that they are today in the middle east, vs. the current violence in Iraq, Gaza, and in Lebanon. Consider John Bolton's current responsibilities;
in the context of his recess appointment by Mr. Bush to UN ambassador, after he failed to win confirmation to the that position, by the republican controlled senate, and Bolton's participation in Richard Perle's 1996 "study group", described below, that issued a report that stated:

Quote:

Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the <b>biblical land of Israel,</b> the 1996 report suggested, and should "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...45652-2003Feb8
Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy

By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01

Running for reelection last month, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel repeatedly boasted of the "deep friendship" he has built with the Bush administration -- "a special closeness,"....

Sharon was describing what his American supporters call the closest relationship in decades, perhaps ever, between a U.S. president and an Israeli government. "This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel]," <b>said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,</b> a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests.
<h3>host inserts: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs= JINSA</h3>

For the first time, a U.S. administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier U.S. administrations, from Jimmy Carter's through Bill Clinton's, held Likud and Sharon at arm's length, distancing the United States from Likud's traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. But today, as Neumann noted, Israel and the United States share a common view on terrorism, peace with the Palestinians, war with Iraq and more. Neumann and others said this change was made possible by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath.

The Bush administration's alignment with Sharon delights many of its strongest supporters, especially evangelical Christians, and a large part of organized American Jewry, according to leaders in both groups, who argue that Palestinian terrorism pushed Bush to his new stance. <b>But it has led to a freeze on diplomacy in the region that is criticized by Arab countries and their allies, and by many past and current officials who have participated in the long-running, never-conclusive Middle East "peace process."</b>....

...The turning point came last June, when Bush embraced Sharon's view of the Palestinians and made Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority a condition of future diplomacy. That was "a clear shift in policy," Kenneth R. Weinstein, director of the Washington office of the Hudson Institute, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud. The June speech was "a departure point," agreed Ralph Reed, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and former director of the Christian Coalition.

Since then, U.S. policy has been in step with Sharon's. The peace process is "quiescent," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's special envoy to the region. "I've kind of gone dormant," he added. In December Bush appointed an articulate, hard-line critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official, using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party. Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by his boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by Vice President Cheney and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration who was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal, then pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. In October 2000, Abrams wrote: "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace with Israel, and there will be no peace."

Said Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute, who shares his outlook: "Elliott's appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy." She added that "the hard-liners are a very unique group. The hawks in the administration are in fact people who are the biggest advocates of democracy and freedom in the Middle East." She was referring to the idea that promoting democracy is the best way to assure Israel's security, because democratic countries are less likely to attack a neighbor than dictatorships. Adherents of this view have argued that creating a democratic Palestine and a democratic Iraq could have a positive impact on the entire region.

Some Middle East hands who disagree with these supporters of Israel refer to them as "a cabal," in the words of one former official. Members of the group do not hide their friendships and connections, or their loyalty to strong positions in support of Israel and Likud.

One of Abrams's mentors, Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, led a study group that proposed to Binyamin Netanyahu, a Likud prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999, that he abandon the Oslo peace accords negotiated in 1993 and reject the basis for them -- the idea of trading "land for peace.<h3>" Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 report suggested, and should "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."</h3>

<b>Besides Perle, the study group included David Wurmser, now a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, and Douglas J. Feith,</b> now undersecretary of defense for policy. Feith has written prolifically on Israeli-Arab issues for years, arguing that Israel has as legitimate a claim to the West Bank territories seized after the Six Day War as it has to the land that was part of the U.N.-mandated Israel created in 1948. Perle, Feith and Abrams all declined to be interviewed for this article.

Rumsfeld echoed the Perle group's analysis in a little-noted comment to Pentagon employees last August about "the so-called occupied territories." <b>Rumsfeld said: "There was a war [in 1967], Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved . . . they all jumped in, and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in that conflict. In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in some parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won."............</b>

......The State Department pressed for continued negotiations and pressure on Sharon to limit the scope of his military response to Palestinian suicide bombers, while the Pentagon and <b>the vice president's office favored more encouragement for the Israelis, and less concern for a peace process</b> which, they said, was going nowhere anyhow........

But the administration did make a series of statements and gestures intended to restrain Sharon's response to suicide bombings, and to reassert the traditional U.S. policy that Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank had to cease. At the urging of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Bush publicly embraced the idea of a Palestinian state.

An internal debate split the administration and invited the lobbying of think tanks, Jewish organizations, evangelical Christians and others who take a fierce interest in the Middle East. While some groups including Americans for Peace Now lined up against Sharon's tough policies and in favor of negotiations, most of the organizations and individuals who lobbied on these issues embraced a harder line, and supported Sharon. Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel.

Friends of Israel in Congress also lined up with Sharon. <h3>In November 2001, 89 of 100 senators signed a letter to Bush asking the administration not to try to restrain Israel</h3> from using "all [its] strength and might" in response to Palestinian suicide bombings. Signers said they wanted to persuade Bush to prevent Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from pressuring Sharon......

....A series of episodes in which Bush felt Arafat behaved inappropriately further soured the relationship. Bush repeatedly refused to meet with Arafat, who had met with Clinton 21 times. And month after month, U.S. officials blamed Arafat for failing to prevent the suicide bombings in Israel.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Sharon began immediately to argue that Israel and the United States were fighting the same enemy, international terrorism. Over the months that followed -- months marked by escalating violence in Israel and the West Bank -- Bush and Sharon grew closer, personally and politically. By the end of last year the two had met seven times and talked on many more occasions by telephone (with Sharon doing nearly all the talking, Israeli officials said). Said a senior official of the first Bush administration who is critical of this one: "Sharon played the president like a violin: 'I'm fighting your war, terrorism is terrorism,' and so on. Sharon did a masterful job."

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, a leading figure in Jewish-Evangelical Christian relations for two decades, offered a more sympathetic description of Bush's alignment with Israel and Sharon. "President Bush's policy stems from his core as a Christian, his perceptions of right and wrong, good and evil, and of the need to stand up and fight against evil," Eckstein said. "I personally believe it is very personal, not a political maneuver on his part."

Politics have played a role, several sources said. Gary Bauer, an evangelical Christian activist and Republican presidential candidate in 2000, said that he and like-minded evangelicals have campaigned vigorously in support of Israel and Sharon's tough policies. "I think we've had some impact," Bauer said.

Another conservative Republican with Christian ties who has made Israel a cause is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Last April, speaking to a Jewish group in Washington, DeLay called Israel "the lone fountain of liberty" in the Middle East, and endorsed Israeli retention of the occupied territories. He referred to West Bank by the biblical names, Judea and Samaria, which are often used by Israelis who consider them part of Israel.

The Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said the White House and its political director, Karl Rove, know "how critical [evangelical] support is to them and their party," and know how strongly evangelicals support Israel. "We need to bless Israel more than America needs Israel's blessing," Land said, "because Israel has a far greater ally than the United States of America, God Almighty."

"This is not your daddy's Republican Party," said James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute in Washington, who argues the administration is losing its ability to act as an honest broker in the Middle East by lining up with Israel. "There's a marriage here between the religious right and the neoconservatives," he said, referring to intellectual hard-liners such as Abrams and Perle, both of whom worked for Democrats before joining the Reagan administration.

US president Bush is a politician, and his "base" is deeply religious. Who is more open about what he is doing and saying, Bush, or Ahmadinejad ?

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...26/lol.05.html
LIVE FROM...

Former President Gerald Ford Hospitalized; Apocalypse Now?; Eight Israeli Soldiers Killed in Lebanon

Aired July 26, 2006 - 15:00 ET

....PHILLIPS:
.....Now, here is the kicker. The book, about 20 pages of Latin script, was allegedly found opened to Psalm 83. Now, if you're a scholar, as you know Psalm 83, "God hears complaints that other nations are plotting to wipe out the name of Israel." Well, that's precisely the kind of news nugget that would get the attention of my next guests, a seemingly random event with an eerie coincidence to reality.

<h3>Jerry Jenkins is in New York. Now, along with Tim LaHaye, he co- authored the widely popular "Left Behind" series -- only 63 million books sold, by the way. Also joining me, Joel Rosenberg in Washington.</h3> He's the author of "The Copper Scroll," the latest of several apocalyptic novels.

<h3>So, gentlemen, from books, to blogs, to the back pews, the buzz is all about the end times.</h3> What do you think about the Book of Psalms? Is this going to be the next thing that both of you will write about?

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIPS: I'm getting...

(CROSSTALK)

JOEL ROSENBERG, AUTHOR, "THE COPPER SCROLL": Jerry, go ahead.

PHILLIPS: I'm getting smiles from both.

All right, Jerry...

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIPS: ... will this be your next book?

JERRY B. JENKINS, CO-AUTHOR, "LEFT BEHIND": Well, that's a...

(LAUGHTER)

JENKINS: It's an amazing news story. I had not heard it. In some...

PHILLIPS: Really? OK. This is your -- this is news to you, then.

JENKINS: Yes. In some ways, it's -- it's not terribly surprising.

I mean, I think God finds ways of communicating with us. And -- and he does that through his word. That's an incredible story. And it would probably have to be written in fiction form, because people are going to find it hard to believe.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIPS: Well, Jerry, you have sold 60 million -- 63 million- plus books about the end times. Why do you think they have been so successful? And -- and why did you go that rite -- route? Why did you want to write about it? JENKINS: Well, the idea for fiction about the end times was really Dr. LaHaye's. He's a prophecy scholar and theologian, has been studying this stuff longer than I have been alive.

But he just had the idea that, after writing several nonfiction books about the subject, if -- if we could put it in fiction format, more people would find it accessible and understandable. And that has proven true.

And, because of the end of millennium, and because of 9/11, and because of what's happening in the Middle East right now, people are scared to death about the future. And I think they hear about books that are based on the prophecies of scripture, and it just intrigues them, and -- and makes them want to find out what we think.

PHILLIPS: So, Joel, are we living in the last days? I mean, let's talk about the specific signs to watch. You have written about them. What does the Bible say? And are we there?

ROSENBERG: Well, people are very interested, I agree.

You know, Tim and Jerry's books deal with the rapture, the disappearance of the church, and the events going forward in Revelation. My theories, "The Ezekiel Option," "The Copper Scroll," are about events that could lead up to the rapture and the return of Christ.

Yes, people are interested, because the rebirth of Israel, the fact that Jews are living in the Holy Land today, that is a Bible prophecy. <h3>When Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, they begin to form an alliance against Israel, those are the prophecies from Ezekiel 38 and 39.

I have been -- that's what I'm basing my novels on. I have been invited to the White House, Capitol Hill. Members of Congress, Israelis, Arab leaders all want to understand the Middle East through the -- through the lens of biblical prophecies.</h3> I'm writing these novels that keep seeming to come true, but we are seeing Bible prophecy, bit by bit, unfold in the Middle East right now.

PHILLIPS: And you talk about epic battles for Jerusalem, you know, the -- the biblical prophecy. Get specific with us. Tell us...

ROSENBERG: Well, that...

PHILLIPS: ... what's happening now that -- that totally correlates with what you have written about biblically?

ROSENBERG: Well, that's right...

Quote:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12103_1.html
<h3>Tim LaHaye is the co-author, with Jerry Jenkins, of "Left Behind,"</h3> the popular Christian fiction series about the End Times. Some Christians believe in the Rapture, an apocalyptic event in which believers will rise from the earth to meet Christ while others are "left behind" to endure the tribulation -- a time of rampant lawlessness, disaster, famine, and illness -- prior to Jesus' return to the earth.

<h3>In your new book, you seem to want to recast the Rapture in a warmer light.</h3>
Actually I want to cast the nature of God in warmer light. The Rapture is a time of incredible mercy and grace. If you only look at the people who defy God, it's a negative time. But if you look at the whole population, it's a blessed time.

<h3>But you can hardly blame people for being scared. You've done as much as anyone to plant the catastrophic events of the Rapture in people's minds.</h3>
I wouldn't plead guilty to that. All we're doing is fleshing out the prophecy of the Bible. There is going to be a time of tribulation, but keep in mind that that seven years comes just before the millenium. The Tribulation is there to let people make a decision about Jesus Christ. For those who accept God's plan, what follows is nothing but utopia. But for those who reject it, it's eternal loss. I don't think that's different than what any Christian would tell you.

<h3>And yet the Rapture isn't considered orthodox Christian theology .</h3>
I think that is an erroneous conclusion propagated by the amillennialist and reform church movements. The truth is, Christianity is divided between those who take the Bible literally and those who take it figuratively. Those who take it literally are far more in the majority, if you're talking about evangelical Christians--Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God and independent churches, like the Brethren. There are a lot of denominational groups that accept this, so I don't think it's fair to say [it's a minority view]. Lets face it, we've sold more than five million copies of Left Behind books, and they say every copy is read by 10 people. Five million times 10 is a lot of people.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us...=1&oref=slogin
February 25, 2007
Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls,<h3> including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush</h3>, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election....

....And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates — Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement or raise enough money to overtake the front-runners, several participants in the meetings said....

....“There is great anxiety,” said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation. “There is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.”

Mr. Weyrich, a longtime member of the council, declined to discuss the group or its meetings. The council’s bylaws forbid members from publicly disclosing its membership or activities, and participants agreed to discuss the Amelia Island meeting only on the condition of anonymity.

<h3>For eight years and four elections, President Bush forged a singular alliance with Christian conservatives — including dispatching administration officials and even cabinet members to address council meetings — that put them at the center of the Republican Party.</h3>...

....The Council for National Policy <h2>was founded 25 years ago by the Rev. Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians to strategize about turning the country to the right. Its secrecy was intended to insulate the group from what its members considered the liberal bias of the news media.</h2> ....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170
Inside the Council for National Policy
Meet the Most Powerful Conservative Group You've Never Heard Of

.....In 1999, candidate George W. Bush spoke before a closed-press CNP session in San Antonio. His speech, contemporaneously described as a typical mid-campaign ministration to conservatives, was recorded on audio tape.

(Depending on whose account you believe, Bush promised to appoint only anti-abortion-rights judges to the Supreme Court, or he stuck to his campaign "strict constructionist" phrase. Or he took a tough stance against gays and lesbians, or maybe he didn't).

The media and center-left activist groups urged the group and Bush's presidential campaign to release the tape of his remarks. <h3>The CNP, citing its bylaws that restrict access to speeches, declined. So did the Bush campaign, citing the CNP.</h3>

Shortly thereafter, magisterial conservatives pronounced the allegedly moderate younger Bush fit for the mantle of Republican leadership.

The two events might not be connected. But since none of the participants would say what Bush said, the CNP's kingmaking role mushroomed in the mind's eye, at least to the Democratic National Committee, which urged release of the tapes.

Partly because so little was known about CNP, the hubbub died down.....

<h3>At least the president of Iran doesn't make secret speeches to his religious, wack job, "second coming", base, unlike our US president.....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...05/wmid105.xml
US evangelist leads the millions seeking a battle with Islam

By Alec Russell in Washington
Last Updated: 1:00am BST 05/08/2006

Anyone who wants to understand why Israel has such unwavering support from the United States should speak to one man.

Fiery television evangelist Pastor John Hagee has emerged as the rallying voice for thousands of American Christians who believe Israel is doing God's work in a "war of good versus evil".

When he strode on to a stage in Washington last month, he was cheered to the rafters by 3,500 prominent evangelicals - as well as by Israel's ambassador to America, a former Israeli chief of staff and a host of US congressmen of both parties.
advertisement

"After 25 years of hammering away at the truth on national television, millions of people have come to see the truth of the word of God," Mr Hagee told The Daily Telegraph. "There is literally a groundswell of support for Israel in the USA among evangelicals."

Twenty-five years ago, Mr Hagee was denounced as a heretic when he urged his fellow preachers to speak out in support of Israel. He also met with huge suspicion from Jews who thought that anti-Semitism was the standard evangelical belief.

When he persevered and hosted a "night to honour Israel" in his hometown, San Antonio, there was a bomb threat and panicked Christian followers ran for the door.

But today most of America's 60 million Christian evangelicals, who make up about a quarter of the US electorate and the essence of the President's "base", <h3>are behind Mr Bush's pro-Israeli position and are pushing for a showdown with Iran.</h3> As many as half of those are Christian Zionists.

Mr Hagee said: "What we have done is united all of this evangelical horsepower and said, 'We're not just going to Washington to stand on the grass and sing Amazing Grace. We're going into the halls of Congress to see the senators and to see the congressmen face-to-face and to speak to them about our concerns for Israel'."

His claim of political clout is no idle boast. <h3>The President sent a message of support praising him for "spreading the hope of God's Love and the universal gift of freedom". They met several times when Mr Bush was governor of Texas.</h3>

America has long identified with Israel against its Arab foes. This backing has been shored up in Washington by the influential Israeli lobby. It also reflects a cultural affinity which is greater in the wake of the September 11 attacks: for most Americans, Israel is on the front line against terrorism.

Another key factor in this bond, however, is Christian Zionism: a booming movement <h3>based on the idea that Israel's travails fulfil Biblical prophecy and are a forerunner of the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming.</h3>

As the head of Christians United for Israel, an organisation linking hundreds of US evangelical leaders, it is no exaggeration to say that Mr Hagee is one of Israel's most influential supporters.

Outside his mega-church is a facsimile "Wailing Wall". Inside on a flagpole is the Israeli flag and tributes from Israeli visitors, including prime minister Ehud Olmert, who came several times when he was mayor of Jerusalem.

In his recent book, Jerusalem Countdown - A Warning to the World, Mr Hagee seeks a showdown between Islam and the West. "This is a religious war that Islam cannot and must not win," he writes. "The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching... Rejoice and be exceedingly glad the best is yet to be."

He concedes it was a "difficult mountain to climb" to persuade evangelicals to back Israel. <h3>Many dispute his contention that some Jews can "find favour with God". Traditionally, evangelicals have argued that Jews will have to convert or face a double Holocaust at the battle of Armageddon.</h3>

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11541
Pastor Strangelove

Texan John Hagee may not have his “perfect red heifer” yet. But he does have a huge following, the ear of the White House -- and a theory that an invasion of Iran was foretold in the Book of Esther.

Sarah Posner | May 21, 2006

.....He had been asked to explain the significance of Purim to Christians, and particularly how the Old Testament's Book of Esther “serves as a roadmap to reality,” which pinpoints where the next world “hot spot” will be.

That soon-to-be-flaming location is where the Book of Esther was set: namely Persia, or in modern parlance, Iran.

Seated beside Lapin in the ornately gilded Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) studio was Pastor John Hagee, the author of an incendiary new book purporting to show that the Bible predicts a military confrontation with Iran. By then, Hagee's book, Jerusalem Countdown, had sold nearly 500,000 copies. ....

....Hagee, who serves as head pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, hosts his own television program that is seen twice a day on TBN. He argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the release of his book last January, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a lobbying organization intended, he says, to be a Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With CUFI, which Hagee has said will cause a “political earthquake,” the televangelist aims to put the political organizing muscle of the conservative evangelical movement behind his grand plan for a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

While Washington insiders wonder and worry whether President Bush really is bent on a military strike against Iran, Hagee already has spent months mobilizing the shock troops in support of another war. As diplomats, experts, and pundits debate how many years Iran will need to develop a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee says the mullahs already possess the means to destroy Israel and America. And although Bush insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, Hagee has dismissed pussyfooting diplomacy and primed his followers for a conflagration.

Indeed, Hagee wields “a very large megaphone” that reaches “a very large group of people,” said Rabbi James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee, who has studied the Christian right for 30 years. With CUFI, the Texas pastor has exponentially expanded the reach of his megaphone beyond his television audience......

Quote:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met...e.14a97df.html

S.A. pastor a champion for Israel

Web Posted: 07/22/2006 11:59 PM CDT

....He's drawn both praise and criticism from Jewish and Christian leaders for what's become his life's work.

His reach — television and radio broadcasts in 190 countries, 21 major books, plus his Cornerstone Church, with an average Sunday attendance of 8,000 to 9,000 — is undeniable.

.....In an interview Friday with San Antonio Express-News Staff Writer Abe Levy, the pastor addressed his pro-Israel campaign and the latest Mideast fighting.

You've visited Israel 23 times and known Israeli prime ministers dating back to Menachem Begin. You've donated $12 million in recent years for 12,000 Russian Jews to relocate to Israel. Why?.....

......Five months ago, you founded Christians United for Israel with 400 evangelical leaders. The group drew 3,500 people to its first-ever summit last week in Washington D.C., and met with members of Congress. You've said this summit will be repeated yearly. What else is in store for the group?

We're going to have a 'call to action' e-mail and fax. Every spiritual leader in the nation, we want to be able to communicate to them every Monday morning about the issues facing America. ... We have something over 16,500 leaders on our 'call to action' list, and some of those leaders have more than a million people on their e-mail and fax address......

Which country has 8,000 nuclear weapons, 12 aircraft carrier task force groups, a fleet of attack submarines and submarines armed with nuclear ICBMs? Iran, or the US?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071501032.html
Marching as to War
Former Air Force Officer Mikey Weinstein Zeroes In on Proselytizing in the Military

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 16, 2006; Page D01

........Yet one of his favorite lines these days -- right up there with "sucking chest wounds" -- comes from <h3>the Officers' Christian Fellowship, a private organization with 14,000 active-duty members</h3> on more than 200 U.S. military bases around the world. In its mission statement, <h3<the OCF says its goal is "a spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit.".......</h3>

......Ambassadors for Christ in uniform. To Weinstein, who is both a Jew and a member of a military family, it is an abomination. It "evokes the Crusades." He says he can't believe that generals talk like this when the United States is fighting a global war on terror and trying to win hearts and minds in Muslim countries...........

This is not an extreme post, authored by an extremist. It is a balancing act, because some here have no sense of balance.

ottopilot · 12-06-2007, 08:51 AM

roachboy · 04-12-2008, 08:12 AM

here it comes again....

Quote:

Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says
Focus on Al-Qaeda Now Diminishing

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; A01

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

In congressional hearings this week, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said the U.S. military has driven al-Qaeda from Baghdad, Anbar province and central Iraq, and he depicted the group as now largely concentrated in a reduced territory around the northern city of Mosul.

During their Washington visit, Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker barely mentioned al-Qaeda in Iraq but spoke extensively of Iran.

With "al-Qaeda in retreat and disarray" in Iraq, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, "we see other obstacles that were under the waterline more clearly. . . . The Iranian-armed militias are now the biggest threat to internal order."

Partly in response to advice from Petraeus and Crocker, the administration has initiated an interagency assessment of what is known about Iranian activities and intentions, how to combat them and how to capitalize on them. The review stems from an internal conclusion, following last week's fighting, that the administration lacked a comprehensive understanding and a sophisticated approach.

President Bush reiterated yesterday that if Iran continues to help militias in Iraq, "then we'll deal with them," saying in an interview with ABC News that "we're learning more about their habits and learning more about their routes" for infiltrating or sending equipment.

But he also reaffirmed that he has no desire to go to war with Tehran. Saying that his job is to "solve these issues diplomatically," Bush suggested heightened interest in reaching a solution with other countries. "You can't solve these problems unilaterally. You're going to need a multilateral forum."

Iran has long been seen as a spoiler in Iraq, with such strong ties to all of the major Shiite political and militia groups, including that of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that other Arab countries have begun to regard Iraq as almost a client state of Iran.

The recent fighting in Basra, which began when Maliki launched a military offensive against the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, revealed a threat and an opportunity, officials said.

U.S. military officials said that much of the plentiful, high quality weaponry the militia used in Basra and in rocket attacks against the Green Zone in Baghdad, where the U.S. Embassy and much of the Iraqi government are located, was recently manufactured in Iran. At the same time, the militia's improved targeting and tactics indicated stepped-up Iranian training.

Interrogations of four leaders of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force captured in Iraq in December 2006 and January 2007 have also bolstered U.S. conclusions that portions of Sadr's militia are directed from Tehran.

Despite earlier indications that Iranian backing for Iraqi armed groups and the flow of Iranian arms have waned, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that "this action in Basra was very convincing that indeed they haven't." Basra "gave us much more insight into their involvement in many activities."

Gates, who appeared with Mullen at a Pentagon news conference, said of Iran: "We are going to be as aggressive as we possibly can be inside Iraq in trying to counter their efforts." Iraqi security operations in Basra, he said, have been "a real eye-opener" for Maliki's government.

Petraeus told Congress that Maliki had launched the offensive hastily and with inadequate preparation, leading to a standoff and the need to call in U.S. air support. During the first days of the Basra operation, U.S. officials were sharply critical of Maliki's timing and performance; some worried that the attack against Sadr forces was less an offensive against what he called "criminals" in Basra than it was an attempt to win political advantage over a rival Shiite group before upcoming elections.

Iran's brokering of a tentative cease-fire among Shiite political groups and the militia in Tehran added to U.S. consternation.

"The importance of Iranian influence in facilitating the discussion between different political factions was of significant importance," Petraeus told Pentagon reporters yesterday. Administration officials worried that Iran appeared in control of events in Iraq, while the United States seemed weak and uninformed.

But more recently, U.S. officials have seen a possible advantage in the situation. Maliki's willingness to go after fellow Shiites attracted support from other political groups in Iraq, including Sunnis and Kurds, that have long been suspicious of his sectarian leanings. It also gave Washington a talking point to use with Sunni Arab governments in the region that have shunned him. "It's an opportunity to make him look better inside Iraq and to make a better argument to the Arabs," an official said.

The administration has long tried in vain to build Arab diplomatic and economic support for the Iraqi government. But the Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia, consider Shiite Iran a competitor for regional dominance and have rejected Maliki as "a stooge for Tehran," as one U.S. official called him.

"The Saudis appear to feel that the current Iraqi government is pretty much in thrall to Iran," said a State Department official involved in Middle East policy. The administration's hope, "in the wake of Maliki's decisions on Basra," the official said, "is that the Saudis will take a step back and take another look."

In a news conference Thursday, Crocker dismissed Arab concerns about a recent visit to Baghdad by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's not the fact of the Ahmadinejad visit, but the absence of visits by other neighbors that it's important to focus on. There hasn't been a single visit, even by an Arab cabinet minister, to Baghdad. As Iraq grapples with the challenges Iran is posing, it could certainly do with some Arab support."

After consultations with Crocker and Petraeus this week, Bush cut short their Washington visit and dispatched them to Riyadh. During a luncheon at The Washington Post, Crocker said that at a White House meeting Thursday morning, they "reviewed where we are in Iraq."

The message to the Saudis, he said, "is going to be . . . it is time, more than time, for the Arab states to step forward and engage constructively with Iraq. Get their embassies open, get ambassadors on the ground, consider visits, implement debt relief, treat Iraq like the country it is, which is a central part of the Arab world."

Staff writers Peter Baker and Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101606.html

Baraka_Guru · 04-12-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Iran's brokering of a tentative cease-fire among Shiite political groups and the militia in Tehran added to U.S. consternation.

Does this mean the Americans are threatened by the Iranian progress of establishing political ties in Iraq?

I suppose that is one of the fastest ways to get attacked.

roachboy · 04-12-2008, 08:35 AM

apparently, such iranian involvement as there was in the ceasefire that enabled the bush administration to claim that "the surge" was doing anything at all is understood as a threat. that there would be some political ties seems self-evident, given.

what this seems to me to raise in a backhanded way is why iran is not PART OF THE PROCESS rather than a threat to the bush people's neo-con understanding of geopolitics?

so bush administration intentions toward and understanding of iran is (are?) a troubling variable(s?)--each time the question resurfaces, i find myself getting uneasy in a new and improved way.

Baraka_Guru · 04-12-2008, 08:41 AM

Yeah. It is becoming even more apparent that the Bush administration isn't so much concerned about the well-being of Iraq as it is with the dominion over its fate. As long as they see Iran as an undeniable threat, Iraq will remain unstable. This isn't so much about Iran's "meddling" as it is about the political and cultural factors of Iraq/Iran interactions.

This isn't the first time America as been insensitive (ignorant?) in this regard.

host · 04-12-2008, 09:16 AM

From roachboy's article:

Quote:

.....After consultations with Crocker and Petraeus this week, Bush cut short their Washington visit and dispatched them to Riyadh. During a luncheon at The Washington Post, Crocker said that at a White House meeting Thursday morning, they "reviewed where we are in Iraq."

The message to the Saudis, he said, "is going to be . . . it is time, more than time, for the Arab states to step forward and engage constructively with Iraq. Get their embassies open, get ambassadors on the ground, consider visits, implement debt relief, treat Iraq like the country it is, which is a central part of the Arab world."

Just as the monster Dr. Frankenstein created, turned out to be, Iraq has turned into the Bush administration's worst nightmare....the thing it was kept from becoming, under Saddam's harsh rule, a shi'a dominated Islamic republic, closely aligned with it's next door neighbor, shi'a dominated Islamic republic, Iran. I don't see the sunni Saudis welcoming this development or being swayed by Bush/Crocker demands.

I detailed in this recent post, the indications that Iran has already won the war in Iraq

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=11

The Iranian president announces his visit weeks in advance, is met at the airport by prominent Iraqi officials, with the exception of sunnis, receives the ceremony of a state visit, travels from the airport without massive security or even in an armoured vehicle, and stays in Baghdad, outside the green zone.

Cheney and McCain, less than two weeks later, sneak unannounced, in tandem "surprise" visits, into Iraq, with ever present massive security when they aren't hunkered down in the green zone.

This terrorist is allowed a frequent, open forum on Fox to tout his propaganda and his terrorist organization, Fox pays him to do it, and he is allowed to live and work in the US:

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350391,00.html
A Roadmap for Success in Iraq

Friday, April 11, 2008

By Alireza Jafarzadeh

There is no doubt Iraq’s No. 1 problem is, in fact, Iran. Unlike Al Qaeda, which is a malicious, but nonetheless superficial threat, Iran under the expansionist rule of ayatollahs is a strategic threat for a sovereign, unified and democratic Iraq. Currently, Iran's widespread and deadly presence in Iraq includes as many as 32,000 Iraqis on its payroll. Made up of agents within and without Nuri al-Maliki’s government, this list includes senior officials in the Iraqi police force, ministries, National Assembly and other institutions.

The United States can still reverse the tide and win in Iraq, but it must act quickly and decisively. Rather than wasting time, blood and treasure debating some sort of ineffectual and illusory “diplomatic surge” aimed at converting the murderous ayatollahs’ regime into a peace partner, we should focus on effective, albeit bold, new approaches.

Any viable game plan must start by stepping up the arrest of the regime's agents in Iraq; cutting off smuggling routes for weapons, explosives and agents; disarming the Shiite militias which include the Badr Brigade, not just the Mahdi Army, as well as scores of other violent proxy groups such as Seyyed ol Shohada and 15th Shaban groups; and purging the Iraqi government of Tehran's proxies. In other words, the U.S. must set about vigorously dismantling Iran's terror network in Iraq.

This must be coupled with empowering the moderate, non-sectarian Iraqi political figures so that they can form a national unity government. That must be the focal point of Washington’s political efforts in Iraq. Nuri al-Maliki and his government, commonly known among Iraqis as the "Persian ex-pats in light of the many years of grooming they received from the Qods Force in Iran, are a liability. Iraq under Maliki will never see unity, non-sectarianism or democracy.

Many moderate Iraqi politicians, including some key members of Parliament, view Iran's main opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), based in Ashraf City, Iraq, as a reliable partner for genuine democracy in Iraq and Iran. The MEK has acted as a catalyst for building stability, and has fostered unity among moderate Shiites and Sunnis. A large group of bipartisan members of the U.S. Congress believe that Washington should open a dialogue with the MEK, as a strategic partner in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism and a bulwark against the Iranian regime’s influence in Iraq. According to the U.S. military, since 2003, the MEK has exposed many of Iran’s terrorist conspiracies in Iraq, thus saving the lives of countless Iraqis and Americans.

The strength and resilience of the Iraqi people should reassure us that tomorrow’s Iraq does not have to be a sister Islamic Republic of Iran. If Tehran’s tentacles are cut off in Iraq, the Iraqi people will have a real chance to form a peaceful, non-sectarian and democratic society. That is a plan that seems to already have the support of the U.S. Congress.....

....There is no doubt Iraq’s No. 1 problem is, in fact, Iran. Unlike Al Qaeda, which is a malicious, but nonetheless superficial threat, Iran under the expansionist rule of ayatollahs is a strategic threat for a sovereign, unified and democratic Iraq. Currently, Iran's widespread and deadly presence in Iraq includes as many as 32,000 Iraqis on its payroll. Made up of agents within and without Nuri al-Maliki’s government, this list includes senior officials in the Iraqi police force, ministries, National Assembly and other institutions.

The United States can still reverse the tide and win in Iraq, but it must act quickly and decisively. Rather than wasting time, blood and treasure debating some sort of ineffectual and illusory “diplomatic surge” aimed at converting the murderous ayatollahs’ regime into a peace partner, we should focus on effective, albeit bold, new approaches.

Any viable game plan must start by stepping up the arrest of the regime's agents in Iraq; cutting off smuggling routes for weapons, explosives and agents; disarming the Shiite militias which include the Badr Brigade, not just the Mahdi Army, as well as scores of other violent proxy groups such as Seyyed ol Shohada and 15th Shaban groups; and purging the Iraqi government of Tehran's proxies. In other words, the U.S. must set about vigorously dismantling Iran's terror network in Iraq.

This must be coupled with empowering the moderate, non-sectarian Iraqi political figures so that they can form a national unity government. That must be the focal point of Washington’s political efforts in Iraq. Nuri al-Maliki and his government, commonly known among Iraqis as the "Persian ex-pats in light of the many years of grooming they received from the Qods Force in Iran, are a liability. Iraq under Maliki will never see unity, non-sectarianism or democracy.

<h3>Many moderate Iraqi politicians, including some key members of Parliament, view Iran's main opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), based in Ashraf City, Iraq, as a reliable partner for genuine democracy in Iraq and Iran. The MEK has acted as a catalyst for building stability, and has fostered unity among moderate Shiites and Sunnis. A large group of bipartisan members of the U.S. Congress believe that Washington should open a dialogue with the MEK, as a strategic partner in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism and a bulwark against the Iranian regime’s influence in Iraq.</h3> According to the U.S. military, since 2003, the MEK has exposed many of Iran’s terrorist conspiracies in Iraq, thus saving the lives of countless Iraqis and Americans.

The strength and resilience of the Iraqi people should reassure us that tomorrow’s Iraq does not have to be a sister Islamic Republic of Iran. If Tehran’s tentacles are cut off in Iraq, the Iraqi people will have a real chance to form a peaceful, non-sectarian and democratic society. That is a plan that seems to already have the support of the U.S. Congress.

The signs are that US interests have collapsed in Iraq to the point that only the sunnis have common goals with the Americans, but they are the side of Saddam and al Qaeda, aren't they? Can a supporter of Bush policy come on the thread and attempt to make some sense of these contradictions for us?

08-31-2007, 11:54 AM	#42 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:38 AM..

08-31-2007, 12:37 PM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	but it is self-evident that the government of iran is not monolithic either. if you want to talk about iran, then let's talk about iran. there's no need for the Giant Framework---i mean to even get to this yourself, otto, you have had to push through the language of your own post (no. 22 i think) so on the one hand, we have this term "radical islam"...which i personally think useless, but which we can i suspect agree to disagree about and still shift the discussion. and i think there is an interesting conversation to be had about iran, too. i am not sure if starting a different thread would be better or if it would work jsut as well to collectively push reset on this one and redirect it. that means leaving 22 and the discussion it engendered behind at this point and refocussing on iran. i am busy with other stuff at the moment, so will leave it to you, otto, if you dont mind, to choose how we go about this. btw: this is just a suggestion--i am not trying to shut down anything, more looking for a bit more frame clarity so we can have a different kind of debate/discussion. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-31-2007 at 12:40 PM..

09-11-2007, 08:54 PM	#48 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	First off battle plans are already there, they are called contingency(sp) plans... as noted on this forum before we have contingency plans drawn up for every country including Canada. Bush cannot go to "war" with them, only Congress can approve war. Since Vietnam Congress has reigned in executive power over the military, were they have pretty strong over sight. So if you are asking if Bush can pull another Iraq in Iran, absolutely not. I'm sure in theory Bush could send some missles, some planes, have some cruisers blow shit up, hell there might even be a window for a possible ground incursion. But without congressional oversight, at most he has a 90 day window, and I sure that I am swinging high saying that. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-11-2007, 10:05 PM	#49 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Going to war with Iran would probably top the list of most stupid things the Bush administration has ever done (if they do it). Bush and co. had the opportunity back in 2002 to actually support the movement away form Radical Fundamentalism in Iran. It would have meant opening up an embassy and normalizing relations with Iran. It would have meant speaking up for the many moderate muslims in Iran who voice their opinions in the newspapers and other media. At present there are three factions... the moderates, who favour democratic reform and modernization of Iran. The conservatives who are largely made up of business people, who just want things to work smoothly. The fundamentalists, who are at the core of the revolution and represent the "sick" side of Iran... The numbers of Reformers and Fundamentalists are about equal. All that needs to be done is swing the support of the Conservatives over to the Reformers. Back in 2002, before the current regime was elected, this would have more doable than it is now. But I believe it's still possible. Iran is a democracy, perhaps in name only but a democracy nonetheless. Instead of talk of the "axis of evil" and rattling of sabres, more work needs to be done to build bridges with Iran. After all, it was with Iranian support that the US secured the support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It was with Iranian support that the US rebuilt the power structures in Kabul. There are moderates in Iran that can turn the tide (even now) but they need support. Normalizing relations with Iran would go a long way to creating that support. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-12-2007, 08:41 AM	#52 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Executive orders can only work off pre-existing law. In the case of the "war on terror" everything Bush has done has been done in the framework of congressional law whether it was the establishment of a new cabinent position, the patriot act, guantamo bay, FISA courts, military action in Afghanistan, etc. As it stands this country isn't operated by one person/position. I'm stating this hypothetically (and not really attempting to argue the point further so as not to thread jack), but if Bush is doing something illegally it is congress's fault along with the judiciary (not saying he did or didn't) for not checking his power and reigning him in. In regards to military conflict directly there are checks and balances, like in the past with the War Powers resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) which establishes: -regular consultation with the congress, and if possible consultation preceeding any military action, which would leave the door open for say a reactionary mission, but not a full scale invasion. -a dossier submitted to the speaker of the house and pres. of the senate 48 hours following action stating necessity/circumstances, constitutional authority in which action was invoked and what legislative law gave made framework, and scope/duration of the mission -Military action only has a 60 day window (where I quoted 90 earlier) following a written report to congress ^^. The operation can only continue by legislative authority (read declaring war or specific law), if congress is unable to convene as a result of conflict, or a possibly 1-time 30-day extension if "military necessity" requires it. Any concurrent congressional resolution can put an immediate end to action. (The law in its entirity http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...rs/33/toc.html) __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-31-2007, 01:51 PM	#44 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I think part of the reason why we're hearing about a Global Iranian Consipiracy is because of the success of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is quite powerful and a thorn in the side of Israel and the US. Hezbollah managed to drive Israel out once and stared them down again last summer. For this reason (and no doubt others as well) Hezbollah bugs the hell out of Lebanese Christians, Israel, and, by extension, its neocon allies in the Bush regime. Yes, Hezbollah is backed by Iran, but it would be a mistake to assume that it is powerful merely because it has Iranian support. It's powerful because it has the support of a good portion of the Lebanese population. It has that support because it runs hospitals, schools, and all sorts of social programmes for an underserved majority. This is the kind of thing that the folks who run the US state usually have trouble understanding.

09-11-2007, 06:32 PM	#47 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Apparently we are now drawing up battle plans.... Can Bush go to war with them without authorization? Will people stand up and say no to this neocon regime?

09-12-2007, 06:46 AM	#50 (permalink)
Racnad Crazy Location: Washington State	On "spreading democaracy:" One of the "reasons of the week" for invading Iraq was to introduce democracy to the Middle East. The irony is that while Iran is not exactly an American-style democracy, it is more democratic most countries in the middle east, including several US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. When visitng Iran for a documentary last year Ted Keppel noted that in the Iranian media, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is ridiculed as much as George Bush is in the American media. On Iran and nukes: If we don't want more countries to develop nuclear weapons, the worst thing to do is to go on Iraqi-style invasions. In international relations, nuclear weapons are the equilvelent of a .44 Magnum on your hip that says "don't fuck with us." No country that possesses nuclear weapons was ever been invaded, and countries with no nukes know that well. Would Osama bin Laden have been able to hide in rural Pakistan for 6 years if Pakistan didn't have nukes? Remember what Bush said after 9/11: "We will not make distinctions between terrorists and the countries who harbor them." Well, that doesn't apply to rural Pakistan becuase the biggest danger in the world is not the prospect of North Korea or Iran, it is Pakistan falling into the kind of instability that Iraq is in now. Who knows who would get control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal??? On Invading Iran: I recently heard an inteview with former UN ambassador John Bolton. He claimed that there are large numbers of young Iranians who don't liketheir government and would welcome and support Amercian invasion to remove the Iranian governent. Not only does this argument sound disturbingly familiar, it is comletely absurd. Imagine if a foreign power such as China thought "Look at all the Americans who don't like George W. Bush. If we invaded America and removed George Bush, all the people who don't like Bush would be greatful and supportive of us." Completely absurd. Young Iranians may very well want change in their country, but like Amercans, we they'd want to do it themselves.

09-12-2007, 07:06 AM	#51 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Mojo, There are lots of laws which state what the President can and can't do legally but it hasn't stopped him before. Bush could simply say he is chasing Al'Queda and doesn't need congress's approval because he already got it for the "war on terror". I really hope he doesn't put us into another war and end up breaking our bank.

09-12-2007, 08:57 AM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the fait accompli approach--the "hello congress, we have attacked iran whaddya gonna do?" way--would require an Event. so while i think mojo's right---it is within the purview of the administration to launch an action without congressional consent---politically such an act would require a pretext. that you can lead vignettes in the press every few weeks that seem geared around preparing the ground for the Event, so far there hasnt been one. the reason for the Event requirement is that the action would have to be pitched as reactive. i think it's unnecessary because there is near-perfect symmetry between the situations of the bush people and ahmadinejad right now: two politically weak reactionaries propping themselves up politically through exercises in sustained dickwaving in the general direction of the Enemy. but perhaps this symmetry offends the finely tuned aesthetic sensibilities of the few remaining neocons, who may well feel that this kind of situation can only really work when it is not obvious. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-12-2007, 02:59 PM	#54 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Mojo, Bush believes that the congressional resolution in support of a preemptive attack on Iraq, applies to any source of "terror," that he deems a potential threat to the US. BushCo has been parading the various pretexts that roachboy mentioned for months now. Add to that the recent "accidental" movement of nukes to the Air Force base that is the launch point to the Middle East and we have an interesting alignment of dots to connect. Military and Intelligence insiders believe that the nuke movements were leaked to the Military Times, which forced the Air Force to come up with the "accident" excuse. Had there actually been an accidental movement of nukes, which is considered virtually impossible, we would never have heard of it from the military. I am further disturbed by the well publicized Air Force grounding of all aircraft on 9/14, to address this accident. It is absurd just on the face of it. The pilots of the planes did not attach nukes to the underside of their wings, and I can't imagine anyone else "checking out" a few nukes from the nuke library. Something seriously stinks in this whole story. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

09-12-2007, 03:23 PM	#55 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Why would the nukes re-alignment prove anything? I have no idea how the nuke contengency works, and I'm not assuming you are wrong, but why point to that as a point of escalation? The US has been stepping up its presence in the gulf for months and running drills and war games right off the coast. Also I'm not sure 6 nukes (thats the number right) is much of a threat to the Iranian regime, and at any rate I cannot fathom that any elected official, civilian, or military personnal would think NUKING Iran would be a smart action. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there is some uber-ridiculous blow hard who says its a legitimate option, but Bush is not that stupid (although I have been wrong in the past). As for what Bush thinks the Iraqi resolution applies to or not, put it all on the congress at this point. The dems need to show that they are not a bunch of politicking gabroni's and at least attempt to reign in executive power if the threat of military action in Iran is so tangible. If anything happens its as much their fault as it is his. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-12-2007, 04:40 PM	#58 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's citizens and yet there was no talk of attacking Saudi Arabia. Saudi money goes to support terrorism around the region and yet no talk of attacking Saudia Arabia. The country is not even close to a democracy and yet, despite talk of trying to bolster the growth of democracy in the region, there is no talk of attacking Saudia Arabia. Iran, a democracy (perhaps in name only), with a relatively free-speaking press, who had no citizens involved in 9/11 and with no readily apparent ties to Al Qaeda is not only in the Axis of Evil but slated for invasion. What it looks like to me is that the US would rather support despots who keep the oil flowing than burgeoning democracies. The fact is democracies are messier than despots. They don't always go in the direction you want them to. BUT with increased trade and increased diplomacy, investment in education that counters what the mullas spout. There is a more realistic chance of changing the course of the region. The real thing Bush should have been spending trillions in treasure on was breaking Americas and the Middle East's dependency on oil. So long as the Fundamentalists in Iran have oil money to pay off their cronies and smooth over the inefficiencies of their rule, they will hold onto power. The same is to be said of places like Libya and Saudi Arabia... thanks to oil money, their despots can afford to buy peace within their boarders. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-12-2007, 05:09 PM	#59 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Charlatan so much wrong with you post. In a short response -15 Saudi Nationals do not equate to a problem with the Saudi government or state sponsored terrorism. Iran Quds unit is a branch of the revolutionary guard and directly associated with the government of IRan, just like Hezbollah a terrorist organization with long standing terrorist involvement against America and the west. Iran being a democracy is a farce. They were moving towards something a few years ago under Khatami, but since he has been out of power the overlord/guardian council stepped in and has an effective strangle hold on the politics. There is nothing democratic when there are not free and open elections. As noted in other threads it is not so easy to make a comparison between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The house of Saud has a delicate deal with Sharian Islamofacists whom you so readily speak of, they walk a fine line, and as brought up in other threads I would rather have the House of Saud in power then another hardline Muslim theocratic regime. Not bringing up direct figures, but America has little dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, in fact we only get some 20-25% of our oil from the region. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-12-2007, 06:49 PM	#61 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I am not refuting the issue of Saudi ties to terrorism, I just think trying to use the fact that 15 hijackers being of Saudi origin equates to its own issue and in so far as 9/11 and governmental support is moot. If you knew anything about OBL and Al Qaeda you would know the roots of his fatwa. Remember desert storm? Osama went to the Saud family and offered to handle the situation with Iraq, much the same way he did with Afghanistan, they had the Americans do it. What happened then? OBL actively worked to topple the Saudi regime and was expelled. I think it is a safe bet that as far as state sponsored terrorism is concerned OBL and Al Qaeda have no ties with the Saudi government. Now, it is a rich kingdom with a lot of rich mullahs who don't like the west, but that is an issue of the theocratic-societal underpinnings in my book and less an issue of the government. At the same time I could bring in the whole Israeli issue and Saudi Arabia, but that is a whole nother can o' worms. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-13-2007, 07:19 AM	#63 (permalink)
Racnad Crazy Location: Washington State	In trying to associate Iraq to 9/11 Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have pointed out that prior to 9/11 that some members of Al Quada did visit Iraq or resided in Iraq, or met with Iraqi officials (as did Rumsfeld in that famous photograph). If that is the standard for estanblishing responsibility, then you can make a much stronger case of Saudi Arabia being reponsible for 911. (By that standard you can also say the US was involved because the hijackers spend a lot of time in the US attending flight school - I'm sure some of the 911Truth people are arguing that). Not only were most of the hikjackers Saudi, Osama bin Laden is as well, and he has many relatives who are prominent in Saudi society. I don't beleive that the governemnt was involved in anyway, but many prominent Saudis are sympathetic to Al Quada. To understand Iran you have to look at Iranian history for the past 50 years. Following WWII, Iran had a democratically elected leader who was overthrown by the UK/US for starting to nationalize the oil industry. The Shaw was installed, who ran the country as dictatorship using a Secret Police. But the Shaw played ball with the oil companies, and was also anti-Soviet, firmly on the US side throughout the cold war. (An Iran friendly to the Soviet Union would have given the Soviets access to warm water port - the Persian Gulf - and it was VERY important to the US and NATO that this NOT happen. In 1980, the show was overtthrown, and the US embassy in Terhan was invaded and occupied, with 50 US citizens were held as hostages. In international relations, this is a HUGE sin, equivelent to an invasion. The current state of affairs between the US and Iran is a result of that bad blood. Iran is mad at the US for backing the Shaw's dictatorship and secret police, and the US is still sore about the violation of the US embassy (the generation of Cheney/Rumsfeld were working in governement at that time and remember it well). Americans should also keep in mind that civilization existed in Iran/Persia when Europeans were jusy tribes of hunter/gatherers. The Iranians are very aware and proud of the their cultural history, and the don't want to play second fiddle to anyone. The idea that young Iranians would welcome a foreign invasion to remove their governement is abasurd as the notion that Amercans who don't like Bush would welcome a foreign invasion to remove Bush. If you think Iraq is bad, a US war with Iran would be much, much worse. The solution would be for the US and Iraq to agree that the past is past and work together to move forward. Last edited by Racnad; 09-13-2007 at 07:32 AM..

09-13-2007, 04:43 PM	#65 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Excellent article, Elphaba.

09-13-2007, 04:53 PM	#66 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, but where is our host? I am a poor substitute for digging up important news. I miss him. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

09-24-2007, 04:05 PM	#68 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I expressed an opinion here and another politics forum a year or so ago that Ahmadinejad's public statements have been conveniently mistranslated for our consumption. If you really want to rile the majority of American's, inferring the intention of a literal attack against Israel is the way to go. You can be certain that I was accused of being far worse than a "looney liberal" for the opinion. Another thought I expressed was that his discourse on the holocaust was also not to be taken literally, but as rhetorical device based upon logical principals. IF, the holocaust occurred (which of course, it did), THEN those that took the lives and property of the European Jews must return that property to the survivors. Ergo, if the holocaust occurred, why were the European Jews given the property of the Palestinians? That question is the fundamental basis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East and has earned the "West" so many enemies within the region. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

09-26-2007, 08:07 AM	#69 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	It's funny - all the wingnuts protesting Ahmadinejad's visit to the US have now strengthened the guy's faltering position in Iran. The Iranian people - who largely don't care for the guy - are now forced into backing him given the howls over both Ahmadinejad personally and Iran in general being broadcast by US and International media. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

09-26-2007, 08:14 AM	#70 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Instead of Columbia Uni... they should have sent his ass down to Fort Bragg to speak to the 82nd. Just so he can piss off the right audience before our next fearless leader sends us off to do something stupid in the desert. Again. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

09-26-2007, 11:19 AM	#71 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:34 AM..

12-05-2007, 06:27 PM	#72 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I wonder if the new NIE will change foxnew's tune. Of course Bolton just went on fox news demanding hearings into the intelligences agencies for being politicized contrary to the president...

12-05-2007, 09:51 PM	#73 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	It seem like this saber-rattling on Bush's part is largely part of a political ploy by the Republican party. He'll talk tough about Iran, and then dick around until the election, not doing anything about it. If the Democrats win the election and things in Iran eventually get better, the Republicans can claim it as the result of Bush's early pressure. If things get worse, it can be blamed on the Democrats' inaction (or actions, whichever the case may be). If a Republican wins the election, they can deal with Iran afterward. This isn't the best way to handle the situation, even from a Republicans-must win-at-any-cost viewpoint, but it is consistent with the kind of rhetoric they've been using the past 8 years. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you. Last edited by inBOIL; 07-11-2008 at 12:53 PM..

12-06-2007, 08:51 AM	#75 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:55 PM..

04-12-2008, 08:35 AM	#78 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	apparently, such iranian involvement as there was in the ceasefire that enabled the bush administration to claim that "the surge" was doing anything at all is understood as a threat. that there would be some political ties seems self-evident, given. what this seems to me to raise in a backhanded way is why iran is not PART OF THE PROCESS rather than a threat to the bush people's neo-con understanding of geopolitics? so bush administration intentions toward and understanding of iran is (are?) a troubling variable(s?)--each time the question resurfaces, i find myself getting uneasy in a new and improved way. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-12-2008 at 08:38 AM..

04-12-2008, 08:41 AM	#79 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yeah. It is becoming even more apparent that the Bush administration isn't so much concerned about the well-being of Iraq as it is with the dominion over its fate. As long as they see Iran as an undeniable threat, Iraq will remain unstable. This isn't so much about Iran's "meddling" as it is about the political and cultural factors of Iraq/Iran interactions. This isn't the first time America as been insensitive (ignorant?) in this regard. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot