US to attack Iran?
 

There has been some troubling developments with Iran over the last few months. Below are a few examples:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/23/1333237
Also look at the posturing being done by Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/v/1-eyuFBrWHs
(if someone knows how to imbed this please let me know).



Are we gearing up for another war? What would this do to the upcoming elections? What would this do to our troops? Is there anyway to have a 3rd war without a draft? Or is Fox's posturing just about creating an environment of fear for its listeners in order to get and maintain GOP support?

I don't think that we're going to be able to sustain the second war for very much longer without a draft, let alone a third one. I wonder how many 18-26 year olds will suddenly come to terms with their "homosexuality" and come out of the closet?

I have a hard time taking this seriously. But if you would have asked me 10 years ago if I thought any of this current absurdity would have been going on I wouldn't have believed it, either.

Let's just say that I hope with every fibre of my being that it is bullshit distraction.

We're going to bomb them into oblivion first. More civilian casualties than in Iraq, and basically level before we set foot in there. We're going to hit chemical plants and even their nuclear site so that the whole place gets poisoned. It makes me sick, but it's very likely at this point. We're in the middle of lying about them developing nuclear weapons, having ties to terrorism, backing the insurgents, etc. It's probably going to happen, and it's going to happen before Hillary gets elected (another prediction that pisses me off).

I just signed the petition....its a tiny little gesture, but at least its a gesture.

http://foxattacks.com/iran

I refuse to watch the Media create war.

That's the scariest thing. The news claims to show "the facts" while lying bold faced to the world. One network pushes it, and the others follow suit because they have to make sure they're reporting the "top stories".

I would hope the current administration is smart enough to realize our military is not limitless. I'm afraid that they probably look at the map and say "well, if we involve Iran then it's just a war against the Middle East and not a war in Iraq and war in Afghanistan.

I am all for killing extremists that hate us, but this seems like a bad way to attempt it.......... and a great way to make more extremists....... and bog down the military in another nation building fiasco (when will the powers what is figure out that the military is for nation destroying, and by nature not so good at nation building)

Perhaps this is as much preparatory for an invasion of Iran as it is to shore up efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a three hour lineup at the Canadian border today... better get packing!

Disgusting - The Administration pushes for a war against Iran and, out of the blue, Fox follows suit with blatant propaganda. If there was ever any proof that the US is going to burn unless something is done to take power away from morally corrupt Neo-Cons or the malleable news coverage is reformed, this is it.

Nothing good can come from attacking Iran - the same was said about Iraq, and look where we are on that front. Not to mention, Iran is not like Iraq - it has allies in Russia and China, and is close to producing its own nuclear weapons. It would be a profoundly stupid move to attack Iran - but I wouldn't put it past the current administration.

Something bad is going to happen me thinks.

pretext building has been ongoing--for example last week a report surfaced somewhere (in a newspaper, but i cant remember which) that the bush people wanted to declare elements within the iranian military a "terrorist organization"...

this is a horrible idea. i keep hoping that the political support the bush people are able to pretend they maintain is collapsing so fast and so thoroughly that an action against iran is ruled out. but then i think: uh...there is little reason to expect that the bush people and reason ever enter the same room.

so i dunno: the possibility is certainly there and has been for some time.
whether the "decider" undertakes an action that'll make the war in iraq look like a session in a sauna or not is still hard to say.

but i agree with the last night of af's post above absolutely.

I hope we don't stick our dick in anybody else's pie for a long, long time.

(keeps his USAR duffel bag packed anyway)

My feeling is that the US will only attack Iran if there is some sort of spectacular terrorist action that can be successfully linked to Iranian nationals. That's my nightmare scenario.

Who needs a nightmare scenario when we have idiots in office?

I like the idea of the draft, so long as the people in the Bush administration are the first draftees.

Though, part of me wonders how they would ever get away with attacking Iran, seeing as how the majority of the American public hates the current war in Iraq.

Great Idea I_L, perhaps Bush's daughters could be the first in line for the draft. Followed by all the children, of all the neocon's that seem hell bent on securing vital natural resources in the middle east. You gotta love that smokescreen though, it worked before, why not again???

Yeah, I don't think they'll even attempt hearts and minds here; they'll go straight to shock and awe....it takes fewer troops. But they'd better make it quick, Russia's aviation industry is booming.

(votes for a major world power to invade the US)

(for a change)

You don't need to invade the entire USA, just DC and Crawford.

I vote no, thats a bit extreme.

Perhaps the Crawford branch of Al Queda needs to be tossed from office before he starts WW3.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2158059,00.html

ok so while the thread veered off into some odd exchange of quips, the bush people continue trying to set up iran as a kind of fifth column in iraq. a partial explanation for american failure--for the bush administration's failure, for the failure of planning on the rumsfeld-model pentagon. the rhetoric continues to ramp up. the "case" being made here is curiously reminiscent of the kind of shabby "case" from 2003...but in this situation there are already considerable american naval resources in the persian gulf and no particular brakes--apart from logistics and politics in the more informal sense.

when i was thinking about the gonzalez resignation and its implications, i kept thinking "ok, but its not as though george w bush has vanished--this idiot is still behind the wheel of something--he needs a crisis, an event, a Problem to bypass the logic of the situation that presents itself in regular time--a situation in which all roads lead to defeat not only for george the figurehead, but also for the entire view of xecutive power generally attributed to cheney, his post-vietnam revisionism, his conception of redress...." so the political situation facing the administration is clear. their difficult in accepting reality that they do not like is clear, at least at the level of the cheap machiavellian politics they have indulged since 2001. impasse impasse impasse.

when a badly written tragedy grinds itself into an insoluble plot dilemma at odds with the desired outcome, the author generally called for my favorite cheap device, the deus ex machina--the god wheeled in on a crane, who waves his god-hands around and "fixes" all the debris left by cheap, bad plot development and whose actions enable the story to "end properly"

no-one wants a shitty ending.

on the other hand, one of the characteristics of the deus-ex-machina is that it kinda comes out of nowhere. but that's in tragedy. a deus ex machina in "real life" is more complex a contraption, requiring some building.

whence the unease generated by this latest escalation of penis-waving in the direction of iran.

now the distinction between seeing in this a cheap narrative device introduced to resuce hapless characters from their own situation--blame the Writer of course, who is the Decider in such situations---and cause for genuine alarm centers on what this statement means really:

what is cowboy george saying here?
what authorizations? to do what exactly?


style mea culpa: the word "cheap" appears too many times in this post.
but all this *is* cheap, in the sense of bad theater.

but it would not be cheap materially, politically, militarily were the scenario behind all this were to unfold, were the bush squad to order an action against iran.

at the very least, the fact that such an action would transparently be about the bush squad propping itself up politically in the states by generating a "new threat" which would legitimate the "decider" in a situation that is no-win for him otherwise---that interpretation of any such action, no matter how it is justified by the bush squad--is so obvious and so unavoidable that it undercuts any coherent machiavellian tactic....

Too bad the UN can't declare Dubya and henchmen a threat to world peace and have them removed from office.

I'd rather if the American people did it ourselves. It's our responsibility. The blood is on our hands for not stopping the invasion and subsequent genocide.

I'm tempted to post something about the military, political, social reasons why a military strike against Iran would be a Very Bad Idea. However, it's clear from the Iraq Debacle that BushCo. do not act rationally. Where the evidence does not suit them, they simply ignore it or have someone make up something more convenient. (I can imagine we'll hear something about how Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iranian agents or some such nonsense.) In any case, if rational arguments are useless what sort of response is possible? I sense a Nixonian gambit, that is, an attempt to institute a state of passivity by suggesting that you're irrational.

Here's hoping that they've generated enough ill will and distrust from their phony posturing during '02 & '03 that they won't have enough support internally to pull it off.

the business i read about somewhere last week of the bush people wanting to get the revolutionary guard declared a "terrorist organization" is something that made me start actively wondering what the hell they are doing....the pattern is not yet entirely obvious, but if the previous farces are any guide, we should be able to piece it together..soon if there is a bit of Theater in the works in a serious way.

I like how when I talk to other soldiers about the idea of invading Iran... they don't really care. They don't think about it; politically philosophy is not a worry.

"How many pairs of socks am I packing, Sarge?"

edit

I'm too lazy to go look up the answer to thsoe questions. Gimme' the answers, and then I'll post a formal response.

Yup. That's what I'm talking about.

Well, to be honest, I don't see the point in asking a series of questions and then telling us to go look up the answers for ourselves. Seems kinda'... Pointless to me. It isn't that I don't care, but that I don't have the time to go hunting down information solely for your amusement.

(Also, I might be going crazy, but did your long-winded response disappear?)

In response to ottopilot's post (which has mysteriously disappeared) suggesting we invaded Iraq to get to Iran (?)...if that was the US plan, it was just another example of the moronic logic of the neo-conservatives.

Saddam, as brutal to his own people as he was, was also a buffer against the spread of Iran's influence in the region. The new shiia-dominated governemnt in Iraq is controlled by the Dawa and SCIRI parties, both of which have long-standing ties to Iran.

The only thing we accomplished in Iraq by removing Saddam was to strengthen Iran and the shiia extremist clerics in Iraql, like Moqtada al-Sadr

Perhaps one of the many haters in this thread has a feasible course of action in regard to Iran?

Note: Iran does not respond to "negotiation." They just want to kill us.

Characterizing folks here with whom you disagree as "haters" hardly adds to the discussion.

You might want to consider the facts that:

* the Iranian people do not want to kill us; most are pro-western....until we indiscrimately start bombing their country and they, and their families, become the latest civilan casualties of US aggression as a result of their proximity to military sites.

* there have been virtually no high level direct discussions between the US and Iran in the six Bush years.

Fortunately there are some within the defense establishment who are not as belligerent as Cheney and the other neo-con chickenhawks.

Admiral Fallon, commander, US Central Command who said ealier this year:
Let us hope he succeeds in "putting the crazies back in the box"

Here is how one report from the UK describes the potential outcome of military action against Iran:

edit

edit

otto:

your post no. 28 is circular.

it is pretty clear that the trajectory into it (your post) began with "radical islam" and a loose definition of it---and *then* passed through a phase of assembling (otherwise arbitrary) information to support it.
not the other way around.

this is the premise:

you put it about 3/4 of the way into the post.
so far as i am concerned, the conversation ended there.
that premise is simply an elaborated paranoia. there might be some therapeutic function to be had by allowing paranoia to unspool across a political category (an ideological meme is more accurate a characterisation)
but frankly you seem only to outline the effects of the phrase "radical islam"

when you decide that "radical islam" is one thing, you make it one thing. when you decide that "radical islam" is everywhere and nowhere, you find it everywhere and nowhere.
this is all the post does--it is a demonstration of this procedure.

so such data as you reference or use is unnecessary. your post is about the effects of the category, and that's about it.

in other words, your post argues from projection.

and you choose to adopt the posture of some Prophet, at least rhetorically.

so you basically tell us--those who who read your post---that you advance non-falsifiable claims.
you tell us that your there is no point in debate because there is no debate to be had so far as you are concerned.
and you tell us that we are benighted if we dont agree with you.

so i am having trouble finding motivation to engage.
maybe reconsider your approach.

edit

I agree with blatteboy about paranoia and circular arguments. I'd add that if you want to identify "Radicalized Islam" as something monolithic and "coming from the Iranian theocracy and their religious allies", you're going to miss radicalised Islam in places like Gaza or the W. Bank, or Algeria, or the Muslim Brotherhood, which has its roots in Egypt. You'd also be missing the reasons for radicalisation of youth in the West. In sum, your premise of a Vast Iranian Islamofascist Conspiracy doesn't account for much.

If one wishes to make the premise that the invasion of Iraq was really directed at Iran, one has to first cleanse ones mind of the causal chain set in motion by the invasion, not to mention SW Asian regional politics and history. It's not a very productive way to go about things.

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:
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.

edit

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.

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.

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

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


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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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.

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

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.

Excellent article, Elphaba.

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

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.
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?

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.

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.

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.

edit

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...

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.

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:
Here is Joseph Farah, "in action", days before the 2004 presidential election:
<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>
<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>
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:
<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:
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 ?
<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>
This is not an extreme post, authored by an extremist. It is a balancing act, because some here have no sense of balance.

edit

here it comes again....

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

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.

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.

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.

From roachboy's article:
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:
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?

I'm getting closer and closer to believing this isn't a Bush and Co. nightmare but rather exactly what they want. A self fulfillling, endless reason to poor billions into the pockets of defense contractors with a side bonus of scaring the living crap out of citizens to the point where many have no problems giving up basic, well defined, civil rights and liberties.

tully, they got it up and running and they can't shut it down now, but they probably never intended to....

"The wheel is turning
and you can't slow down...

...Everytime that wheel turn round
bound to cover just a little more ground"

The "for profit" arm of the "Total Force", is not going to accept "slowing quarterly revenues", a cessation of hostilities that would result in a "hit to it's bottomline".

I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. One thing I do believe is even they don't believe what they're saying anymore. Then that happened I haven't a clue. Did they know the intel on the WMD's was BS? Did they know the insurgency was going to be a huge problem? Did they know this was going to cost 100's of billions? Did they know the surge wasn't sustainable? I don't know but I'm sure at some point they knew "we've turned or are turning a corner" was and is a BS statement.

/I think that for what you said in your previous post to be true, it would follow that they at least knew before 9/11 that an attack was coming and decided to let it play out and then "follow on", and that they deliberately handled the Katrina disaster in a way that would maximize profits for crony contractors, even it is minimized support and aid for the disaster victims. Every where you look.... fired Arabian horse judge appointed to head FEMA, after equally unqualified former Bush campaign manager resigns as FEMA head, to John Bolton, on record, AFTER 9/11....saying it would improve UN if top ten stories of it's HQ buikding were removed.....is appointed by BUSH to head US mission to UN....counter to senate approval, Hans von Spakovsky, accused , at DOJ, of interfering with the minority right to vote, appointed by BUSH to FEC, counter to senate approval,

Bush Has Appointed Over 100 Lobbyists as 'Regulators'More than a dozen other high-ranking USDA officials appointed under Bush also have ties ... Lobbyists commonly suggest wording for legislation. But even EPA ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Outspoken scientist dismissed from panel on chemical safety - Los ...Feb 29, 2008 ... Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel ... the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a ...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6191299.story - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Texas Chainsaw Management: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com... a timber-industry lobbyist appointed to oversee the U.S. Forest Service; ... four years was a top official in the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation. ...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...vingdoor200705 - Similar pages

The Corporate Federal TakeoverLee M. Thomas --- Appointed as EPA Administrator from February 1985 through ... Secretary of Interior despite prior history as an oil and coal lobbyist. ...
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/nrda/nr..._takeover.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

LA Times: EPA Listens To Lobbyists, Boots Expert | Environmental ...Feb 29, 2008 ... EPA Axes Panel Chair at Request of Chemical Industry Lobbyists .... Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel ...
www.ewg.org/node/26075

Joint chiefs chairman Shinseki, forced out of office for countering Rumsfeld's opinion on Iraq invasion troop levels.

Joint chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace, forced out of office for countering Bush opinion of Iranian aid to Iraq insurgency....

Top admiral resigns after criticizing Bush Iran policy - TopixMar 11, 2008 ... Top admiral resigns after criticizing Bush Iran policy. President Bush and U.S. Central Command commander, Navy Admiral William J. Fallon ...
www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSL8SLFLE9IN8TSU0

Morris Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn October 2007 Colonel Davis resigned from his position as Chief Prosecutor and retired ... Morris Davis. "Unforgivable Behavior, Inadmissible Evidence", ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis

It's not just the military, Tully...they are trying to advance Grover Norquist's quest to "drown government". like a baby in a bathtub, by first, fucking it up intentionally, soooo badly that they can "prove" it doesn't work. Then, what is left of it can be privatized, but mostly eliminated.

Junior, just 4 or 5 months from now, will have succeeded in piling $4 trillion in new debt on top of the existing, on January 20, 2001, $5.7 trillion debt that took 200 years to rack up. Even Junior's dad and king Reagan needed 12 years to turn a $995 billion debt into a $4.2 trillion debt!

There is no large protest of all of this, from the American people, so the willful official sabotage and massive destruction it results in, will continue until the results are so terrible that the bulk of people wake up. If it was all stopped today, it would take 15 or 20 years of competent government to even return things to conditions existing on Jan. 20, 2001....maybe.

i don't think you need to go in this direction to explain the bush squad's irrational posture relative to iran, host---i think alot of what's in the above is acccurate in itself, but doesn't necessarily point in this direction.

remember the centrality that the iranian "hostage crisis" and its "nightline" DAY 400 opening played in generating opening the way to the reagan "landslide" (27% of the registered voters, but whatever)...the fumbling and bumbling of the reagan period is really quite funny--there's a book that details it by the former head of savak no less, but i can't remember the title at the moment...but iran is an old populist right bogeyman. by extension, there would be, and apparently is, a republican-specific Problem with chi'a islam--i don't really understand it except as a function of their interpretation of the iranian revolution by looking only at its outcome (not its dynamics) and by extension not thinking about why it is that the revolution was as it was--so basically, it seems that the neo-cons can be understood as still being a bit pissy about the overthrow of that lovely american lap-dog and really quite brutal dictator the shah.

the motivations behind iraq in 2003 seem to me to follow from the neo-con's update of that hoary old "stabbed in the back" theory to "explain" why the americans didn't johnwayne their way into baghdad during the first gulf war--shanked by the evil united nations, you see, and prevented thereby from fulfilling their manly destiny blah blah blah.

so you can see i think that the bush people's irrational attitude toward iran is a direct imprint of the history of the contemporary neo-con right, which is the foreign-policy adjunct to the populist conservative-as-perpetual-victim right that we know and love so well o yes.

this at the level of general narrative, naturlich.

I can only hope the next President of the United States deal more effectively than the current one to contain the threat of a nuclear armed religious theocracy.

:thumbsup:

Agreed, Bush dropped the ball on this one.

a norman podhoretz editorial from commentary powerclown?

commentary:
this is why it is customary to cite sources.

as for the article, in order to get it's shabby logic up and running, our boy norman has to rely on pushing buttons the consensus of which is entirely limited to the manly-man but information-scarce neo-con set.

podhoretz's piece relies on a series of rhetorica flourishes to claim credibility for information that is in fact disputed at every point.

because it amuses me, i'll bite them and put them in a little row:

Up until a fairly short time ago, scarcely anyone dissented
Correlatively, no one believed the protestations
The reason for this near-universal consensus
And just as everyone agreed
To begin with, Iran was (as certified even by the doves of the State Department) the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world
Nor, as almost everyone also agreed,
Although, to be sure, no one imagined that Iran would acquire the capability to destroy the United States, it was easy to imagine that
Running alongside the near-universal consensus
was a commensurately broad agreement

all in the first section.
methinks me doth protest too much.

then the article begins, which is basically an entirely partisan argument based on flimsy information, contestable at EVERY point, buttressed only by this rhetorical hand-waving, that the americans should undertake the insane and worse not-doable campaign of bombing iran.


problem with all this is reality.
well that and the recent history of consequences that derive from actions launched that are rooted in the neo-con reality problem.

Ahhh, yes...the CIA's maestro of the "mighy Wurlitzer", Norman Podhoretz, later of the Neo-con ...."der homeland" fame.....

..."weighs in" to "support powerclown's opinion:



Back on 12-24, I posted this question and this articel:

THEN, FOR THE THREE WEEKS AFTER 9/11...IT WAS ALL "HOMELAND", ALL OF THE TIME!
Isn't it at least something to think about, to ask questions about.....that the most prominent display of the word "homeland".... not in reference to a foreign place, was in the PNAC manifesto....there are no quotes of Clinton or Gore using the word to refer to the US, that I can find, during their 1993 to 2001 term, and almost no reference of the word in news reports, except by George Bush and John McCain in their 2000 campaigns.....but only very infrequently.....but from Sept. 12, 2001, to the end of that month, use of the word by Bush exploded into a cabinet level department.....it appeared in a matter of days.....with it's shiny PNAC name!!!

We can show that you've been conned powerclown....by neo-cons. Why not be man enough to admit it, instead of sharing a Podehertz rant?

This thread is about Iran, not Israel.

Bah, fuck it, glass parking lot for the thread, I'm out.

Homeland was refered to by Slick Willie, only it was a reference to what was behind his zipper, ya know like "come on Monica the homeland needs a little attention".

reconmike, powerclown, Ustwo....how do you know what you know? You were wrong about WMD, about al Qaeda being in Iraq with Saddam's "approval", "before we got there"....wrong about Iran's "ongoing" nuclear weapons development program.... why don't these "setbacks" trigger any reticence, any reflection about your political opinions?

Aren't people going to die, avoidably, and for no fucking reason, when your wrong? Doesn't that matter to you, even if those killed are American troops?

You've forged quite a reputation on this forum, because of the absurdity of your positions, yet you evidently see no need to seriously back them up, except of course for eye rolling, emotional theatrics, snide, one line drive by posts, and Clinton pee pee jokes.

What's Bush's "saying"....? "Fool me once....shame on...we won't get fooled again". Yet he fools you....a fool fooling you...time after time....and you clamor for more....why?

Could the US treasury be in more dire financial straits, could the US military be more hollowed out....would more Americans be dead, would more middle easterners be dead, would US relations with the rest of the world be worse, had Bush done nothing since 9/11? He's done all of it with your blessings. I never forget that, when I read your posts....do you ever forget that?

Are US troops or citizens, "safer" when they are captured now, by US adversaries, or when the US respected the Geneva convention clauses and did not torture? Are there less foreigners today with deep greivances against the US, than there were on 9/12/01? Could it be conceivable that there are hundreds of thousands of addtional foreign folk with deep seated greivances against the US today, than there were in 2001?

What are your goals? What do you want for the US? What part of them has "Bush team" accomplished?

<h3>VS. REALITY:</h3>
More Official US "Iran bashing":
<h3>Boys, how many times will the NeoCons manipulate your concern and emotions, your patriotic "fervor"? They can only do it to you if you're already open to it, and you let them.....</h3>

The editor, Bill Keller, and the public editor of the NY Times admit that they willingly allowed themselves to be fooled by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney concerning justification for invading Iraq. Surely these NY Times staffers are not men of greater integrity, higher principle, than you guys are?

I'd be very interested in a response to this, actually.

Just to highlight your contribution to this discussion, or are you sending a message directed at me? I think I have reacted reasonably, at all times, to you. So, what is this about?

Here is Bush at his best, just the other day, threatening Iran, rehashing his "axis of evil" theme, and lumping Iran with al Qaeda, and the attacks on 9/11:

If President Bush is at all close to accomplishing his "vision", can anyone who supports him and what he says he is doing, answer a few questions?

<h3>Why can the Iranian president preannounce his visit to Iraq, receive an enthusiastic (unprecedented?) official "head of state" welcome from all Iraqi government officials, except sunnis....move from the airport, and around Baghdad with minimal security and in a regular sedan (no armour), stay and sleep outside the green zone, with no US military provided security. Versus, in the same month, Cheney and McCain are observed sneaking into Iraq (no preannouncement of either of their visits)....under extremely tight security...roads pre-swept for IEDs, US troops lining roads, combat helicopters overhead, spending the bulk of their visits in the green zone.....?</h3>

Iran president on landmark Iraq visit - CNN.com
Story Highlights; Ahmadinejad is the first Iranian president to visit Iraq and ... He noted that Iraq has a new government, and is an "independent state." ...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...jad/index.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/02/2008 | Visit by Iran's ...
Mar 2, 2008 ... BAGHDAD — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades and ...
www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/29212.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

President Ahmadinejad of Iran to make first visit to Iraq in March ...
Feb 14, 2008 ... President Ahmadinejad of Iran to make first visit to Iraq in March. ... A State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said the United States ...
www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/14/mideast/iraq.php

<h3>Why did Bush accuse Iran</h3> "to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups"....when the following strongly indicates that Bush himself allowed a US designated terrorist organization, "feed" him false information that he continued to repeat to the American public, and let shape his Iran policy, for years?
<h3>Why did Bush and Cheney, et al surpress the NIE finding on Iran, for a year, and continue to proclaim the exact opposite of the NIE's conclusions ?</h3>
<h3>Why did Bush administration officials and Foxnews have such close ties to a terrorist organization spokesperson, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a man totally discredited in both the 2005 and 2007 NIEs on Iran?</h3>
<h3>Why is foxnews still employing fomer terrorist organization spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, allowing him to quote the current NCRI spokesman and other MEK terrorists, in a frequent series of articles still regularly published on the foxnews site?</h3>
Alireza Jafarzadeh attempted to refute the newly released 2007 NIE on Iran, with this. He's in the same position, spokesman for the NCRI/MEK/MKO, that he was in for twelve years, before the US closed his DC office...only now he is paid by foxnews to distribute his terrorist organization's propaganda:
<h3>How can there be any doubt that Alireza Jafarzadeh was and still is a spokesman for a terrorist organization? :</h3>
<h3>Doesn't the following article demonstrate that the US is guilty of exactly the same thing that Bush accuses Iran of doing:...</h3>"arm and train and fund illegal militant groups" ? Can anyone argue that the US policy is much more estranged from the POV of the Iraqi majority than it is in common with it?

Can you make any case that Bush's opinion and goals are not hypocritcal, contradictory and unrealistic? Witness the cooperation described in the following article, of the US military with a US state dept. designated terrorist organization, an organization unwelcome in Iraq in the opinion of the Iraqi government, so that:
...during a time when Bush or Cheney, or both, as well as those in charge of US intelligence agencies, including Sect'y of Defense Bob Gates, had to know that the "prime source of information about Iran's nuclear program" coming from MEK and NCRI, and from foxnews mouthpiece, Alireza Jafarzadeh, <h3>conflicts with the determinations about Iran contained in both the 2005 and 2007 NIEs.....</h3>

Good luck with that. So far it seems if the argument to bomb Iran is shown to be completely irrational the next move is to either tap out and call for the thread to be a "glass parking lot" or start making references to Bill getting a BJ.


Not surprised really, if the neo-cons have proved anything it is denial is alive and well.

Well isn't this a classic hootenanny ho-down for the TFP Politics board ... both wacky and fortified with wing-nuts.

For all the zany extremes on this argument, it is highly unlikely that issues of such scope and magnitude happen in an absolute vacuum. For as much as some of us would love to pin the blame on singular entities, leaders, and governments, our apparent predicaments are more likely cumulative and complicit by a variety of participants acting seamlessly in the background (or broad daylight) spanning multiple presidential administrations, congress(es), and political parties.

We've been down this road before.

Oh hey otto, I'm glad you're here. A few posts back Host asked an intriguing question of conservatives that I think a lot of people might be interested in your answering.

i think i said that too otto, though i can't tell if that means we agree on this or not. maybe it's the last sentence, following on whatever the hell just happened above.

Is this a saddistic request for entertainment value? :)

Which post are you referring?