Mark Stapleton

It's now become clear that the US, urged on by Israel, is spoiling for a fight with Iran and is attempting to provoke Iran into a war.

The storming of Iranian offices in Iraq and subsequent detention of Iranian diplomats has been labelled 'extreme provocation' by UK based Iran specialist Ali Ansari. There also appears to be an attempt by apologists for the Iraq war, both inside and outside the media, to place the blame for the failure in Iraq on Iran and its allies. "They're sabotaging our best efforts" is an emerging theme, and is being used to justify increased bellicosity towards Iran.

Bush is now stumbling from one disaster to the next. His recent public statement and decision to bolster troop numbers by 20,000 has attracted harsh criticism within political circles. Publicly, Bush expresses great sorrow at the loss of American lives but he still insists on sending more troops to their death. This is probably not surprising. In all his years as Governor of Texas, Bush never pardoned a single death row inmate. 155 to zero was his record as Governor, I think.

It looks like America has heeded Israel's threat: "If you don't do something about Iran then we will".

I think Ted Kennedy is quite brave to continue for as long as he has.

Chappaquidik ended his chance of becoming President, so he could have retreated to an easy life with his millions. He's always seemed like a voice of reason to me.

Interesting stuff, John.

I recall reading that the concept of pensions came into existence after WW1, as a measure by the British Government to remove from public view the maimed and disfigured veterans who had been reduced to begging on the streets. Prior to this the concept was unheard of.

To quote what I just posted in the Back Wound thread:

One problem (or two) with the paralytic theory: the result of using dissolving paralytic elements would be unexplainable wounds (which we indeed have front and back). The conspirators didn't worry about that?

I disagree with Pat that the desired result for the assassins was to kill JFK with one shot. The desired result was to blame the hit on Castro, and the bloodier the better in blaming the bearded bastard, so it didn't matter how many shots it took or from what directions. LHO was the designated patsy, but only as the one identified member of a Castro hit team. (He turned himself into a lone nut by being taken alive.) But while several shots as needed were no problem, I would think that conspirators would hesitate to inflict wounds that were simply unexplainable, particularly since the only likely explanation (who could possibly foresee the SBT?) was the use of CIA weaponry.

I think the film and photographic evidence indicates JFK was immobilised before the head shot. The conspirators anxiety about any public disclosure of this was assuaged by the fact that they knew the autopsy was going to be controlled by persons allied to the conspiracy.

The idea that Castro was to be blamed (via a dead LHO) is interesting. If so, it would indicate Mafia (read Meyer Lansky) involvement, as the mafia was most desperate to unseat Castro. Jack Ruby is another factor tipping the scales towards Mafia/ Lansky. I can't see the MICC wanting to provoke a possible direct confrontation with the Soviet bloc, as their sights were set on prolonged intervention in SE Asia. Perhaps the promise of retaliatory action against a framed Castro was dangled in front of Lansky et al, in order to elicit their participation and then

quickly withdrawn once the deed was accomplished.

Hi Peter,

The Osirak reactor stood way out in the open. It was, as I recall, built on the side of a mountain.

One of the most important lessons from Israel's destruction of that facility was that, in future, such facilities would be better concealed and protected.

I think there would be widespread condemnation of an Israeli airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Remember how Nixon increased his bombing campaign in Vietnam before he began to withdraw troops. It is about television images. Using modern aircraft to bomb civilians on the ground helps to convince the American public that they are giving the enemy a thrashing. There are still some idiots who believe that the US won the war in Vietnam. These images of the war on terror being about hunting down the enemy by air will obviously go down with the right-wing. Not that it will do anything but increase the number of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists in Somalia.

I don't know if a media blitz covering the murder of civilians will work. It's the 21st century.

I agree that the real war is over. It's time for Team America to take the stage.

It's my favorite part of the show.

Just another variation on a theme that has been playing since the end of WW2, lets call it the evil terrorist/empire symphony. As members know this involves the demonisation, sometimes a former ally, of a "Bad guy/state/organisation, many have been called upon to fill this role, Nasser, the USSR, Castro/Cuba, Allende, Bin Laden and Sadam/Iraq to name but a few. The aim is not to defeat this enemy, but simply to HAVE an enemy, one that is easily painted as evil personified, and most importantly, a threat to the "American way"(cue violins, pictures of bald Eagles swooping majestically, and politicians talking about freedom and old glory.)All this has two main advantages for the ruling elite,Spending on military hardware goes, and stays through the roof, and it keeps the general population in a state of hightened anxiety, and anixious people are easily manipulated people.

Good point.

I haven't actually counted them, but most of Bush's speeches are littered with the words 'the enemy'. The storyline never seems to vary: the enemy is evil, cunning, resourceful etc., but we will hunt them down and bring them to justice. The enemy must always be the focus.

Nothing beats clear, rational thinking when formulating public policy.

Perhaps it was the 'drugs' Nixon was on, Mark?

Anthony Summers claims Nixon was a pill-popper with good reason to evade the question "have you stopped beating your wife?"

The Wonkette, discussing the similarities between Elvis and Nixon, shows the happy couple together.

She tells us: "The National Archives and the Associated Press both claim the Nixon-Elvis picture is the No. 1 most-requested photograph".

That story about Elvis charging in to the White House always cracks me up.

I was disappointed that Elvis only got a badge. Since he was packing a piece, he should have settled for nothing less than VP.

Nothing beats clear, rational thinking when formulating public policy.

Sid and David,

Thanks for those informative posts.

My guess, and my knowledge of the Somali situation is far from comprehensive, is that PM Gedi called the Americans in to sort out a few troublemakers whom he percieved to be a threat.

It also gave the Americans a chance to push around a few more 'ragheads' and show the world why the AC 130 Hercules gunship is the world's most expensive aircraft. The targets (and whoever was unlucky enough to be loitering in the vicinity) wouldn't have known what hit them. The AC 130 can fire with accuracy from over a kilometre away, leaving corpses which resemble mincemeat.

A report in today's Daily Telegraph quotes a US intelligence official as stating, "I don't think we got them all". Get ready for another visit from Team America.

Just like in Stone and Parker's film of the same name, these people should be grateful that Team America is on hand to step in and kill the 'terrorists'---even if they ravage the countryside and innocent citizens while they're at it.

An American air strike on Iran is essential for America's existence, eh?

How perfectly sane and rational.

I think this was the same retired Israeli General who was interviewed by Geraldine Doogue on Australia's RN recently. This fellow kept repeating the mantra, 'the West must confront Iran, the West must confront Iran'.

Is there anyone on the Forum, anyone at all, who supports this type of thinking?

If the propaganda blitz on the Democrats is successful and bipartisan support for this is secured, who on the Forum will continue to deny that US foreign policy has been fully captured by the hawks of Israel?

With the recent US attack on the Muslim rebels in Somalia, it looks like a major global conflict based on religion could become a reality.

How sane and rational is that?

I was reading a similar article about this issue last night and was going to start a thread on it but you beat me to it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-02.htm

The article basically echoes the article you have posted, Douglas, highlighting the generous conditions set out in the PSA contract--a contract with very generous provisions for the private oil companies who have capitalised on the Iraqi Governments disadvantagous bargaining position.

* 20% of profits to be retained by the oil companies after cost recovery (industry norm is 10%)

* 60-70% of profits to be retained during the cost recovery period (industry norm 40%)

* Iraqi Government bound for 30 years (industry norm 10-15 years)

It's a cheap and nasty grab for the resources of a nation already devastated by a war it did not start. It gives lie to statements made by Bush, Blair and Powell that they will not attempt to steal Iraq's oil (see linked article).

As for the extremely generous provisions, James Paul of the Global Policy Forum says this:

"It is relatively easy to get oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant oil fields that are completely mapped and there is no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

I think it is possible that these stories are an attempt to put pressure on the government of Iran. During the negotiations about bringing the Vietnam War to an end, stories were leaked to the North Vietnamese government that Nixon was mad and that he was in danger of ordering a nuclear strike on Vietnam. Luckily, they did not fall for this story and the US was forced to withdraw. Maybe, Bush is now using the same strategy.

I think you're right John, but judging by Iran's reponse I don't think they are going to be bluffed.

Both Israel and the US know that using even small scale nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's facilities is too risky. If anything goes wrong the whole world, not just the Arab world, would condemn Israel and the US.

The justification of using nuclear force to prevent a second holocaust, which is currently being put forward by sections of the western media, doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny.

Just as Israel will baulk at the prospect of using a nuclear weapon, so would Iran if it ever possessed one. The consequence of Iran ever using a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel would be the complete destruction of Iran within hours.

Iran will build a nuclear weapon one day, and they already have an adequate missile delivery system. The US and Israel will have to accept that the balance of power within the region will inevitably change.

That's what all the fuss is about---the US and Israel are having trouble coming to terms with this reality.

From today's UK Telegraph comes this piece which seems to imply that Israel has no option but to attack Iran because the rest of the world sat idly by while Iran developed nuclear and missile technology. There's no byline so I assume it's an editorial. A typical Murdoch editorial:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/08/dl0801.xml

Doing nothing over Iran risks leaving Israel to act

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 08/01/2007

By a series of stumbles and lurches, we have come closer to a nuclear conflagration than at any time since the bombing of Nagasaki. Although Israel has - thank Heaven - disavowed reports that it is planning a direct strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, there can be little doubt that Tel Aviv would authorise such attacks if the only other option were a nuclear Iran.

From an Israeli point of view, the ayatollahs are not a putative threat but a proven aggressor. They have armed terrorist proxies in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Iraq, Lebanon and even Argentina, where a bombing at a Jewish community centre in 1994 killed 100 people.

Iran's Shahhab-3 missile has a range of 1,500 miles, but why worry about delivery mechanisms when you have paramilitaries? We have seen Teheran's readiness to equip Hizbollah with rockets.

Can we be confident that they would not, if they could, tip these devices with nuclear warheads?

It is now too late to prevent Iran from acquiring the know-how and materials it needs. Ten years were wasted in futile discussions with the EU, which believed that it could talk the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions.

Nor is Iran's programme vulnerable to a clean strike in the way that Iraq's was. Its reactors are dispersed and buried under tiered layers of earth and concrete.

As Michael Burleigh wrote in these pages on Friday, it may be that President Ahmadinejad's talk of wiping the Jewish state from the map, and his sponsoring of Holocaust denial, are deliberately designed to provoke an Israeli strike.

If this strike were nuclear - which Tel Aviv may judge the surest way to disable underground facilities - Teheran would have the perfect justification for a nuclear counterstrike. This would guarantee the ascendancy of the ayatollahs, not only within Iran but throughout Araby, too.

The international community, bitter after Iraq, is in no mood to listen to arguments about weapons of mass destruction. But if we do nothing, we encourage Israel to act, so bringing calamity on the region.

In between the present policy of passing milk-and-water UN resolutions and the nuclear option (for once the expression is apposite) is an escalating scale of pressure: targeted sanctions, asset seizures and, in extremis, the kind of armed siege that paralysed Saddam during the 1990s.

Above all, we should be sponsoring Iranian dissidents: students, secularists, monarchists, non-Persians. The mullahs have harried their neighbours ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

It is time to replace them with a regime that is capable of dealing with other states on the basis of territorial jurisdiction, human rights and international law.

From Zeenews.com:

Home > World

Iran vows to hit back at any Israeli strike

Tehran, Jan 07: Iran on Sunday warned it would make any foe "regret" an attack against the Islamic Republic after a British newspaper reported Israel was planning a strike against its nuclear facilities.

"Any action against the Islamic republic will not go without a response and the aggressor would regret the action very quickly," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters.

A senior Israeli official has dismissed as "absurd" the report in the Sunday Times that the Jewish state had drawn up plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities in a tactical nuclear strike.

"This comes after the confession of the Israeli Prime Minister who acknowledged that the Israeli regime possesses a nuclear weapon," Hosseini said, referring to Ehud Olmert's apparent slip last year which broke a decades-long official silence on Israel's nuclear programme.

"It will convince world public opinion that the main threat for the world and the region is the Zionist regime," he added.

Bureau Report

A great article on the alternet blog by Chris Hedges describes how the radical Christian Right is coming dangerously close to its goal of taking over the country's military and law enforcement.

Bible breakfasts for Pentagon Generals and the emergence of Blackwater, now a formidable mercenary force in Iraq, founded by mega-millionaire right wing christian Erik Prince, are indications that America is well on the way to becoming a theocracy. Blackwater were seen in their trademark black uniforms patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.alternet.org/story/46211/

No obviously he isn't on trial which is why I used quotation marks, but you have in effect been acting that capacity here; you keep "sticking up"* for him. You even tried denying he was a Holocaust denier AFTER he admitted it, after you finally figured out the obvious you changed your tune to, 'yes he's a Holocaust denier, but that's OK'.

* Perhaps I should have called you his "stick-up man"

Too late.

You referred to me as Sid's 'defense attorney', so you obviously believe a trial is taking place.

Your clarification was weak and unconvincing.

You've goofed up---once again.

Grow up and stick to the topic of the thread please gentlemen

Right on cue, as usual.

I believe I can predict your interjections with great precision now.

I now await the customary threats.

No obviously he isn't on trial which is why I used quotation marks, but you have in effect been acting that capacity here; you keep "sticking up"* for him. You even tried denying he was a Holocaust denier AFTER he admitted it, after you finally figured out the obvious you changed your tune to, 'yes he's a Holocaust denier, but that's OK'.

* Perhaps I should have called you his "stick-up man"

Too late.

You referred to me as Sid's 'defense attorney', so you obviously believe a trial is taking place.

Your clarification was weak and unconvincing.

You've goofed up---once again.

Peter –

Your post and the ire it expresses are quite well taken but they are directed at the wrong person. Steve as you are well aware has always disputed Sid Walker’s long debunked crap. He has never indicated he though such idiocy was in the least bit likely. You’re anger and condemnation should be directed at Walker and PERHAPS his ‘defense attorney’ Mark Stapleton. IMO (and as someone with a similar family history) I think you owe Steve an apology.

I also see little value in debating this issue here but for different reasons. Apparently only one member of this forum believes this nonsense and he is extremely unlikely to ever change his mind no matter how much evidence is produced.

Len

Thanks for this enlightening insight into your thinking, Len.

As Sid's 'defense attorney', I have just one thing to say--I was unaware that he was on trial.

Scott Ritter has a new book out, "alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage” (according to this review in The Jewish Daily Forward).

Here's a longer extract:

Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”

Ritter’s book echoes recent high-profile attacks on the pro-Israel lobby by former President Jimmy Carter and by scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Ritter, who recently returned from a weeklong speaking engagement on The Nation cruise, speaks of a “network of individuals” that pursues Israel’s interests in the United States. The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent.

Representatives for both Aipac and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Ritter’s accusations.

In his book, Ritter also accuses the pro-Israel lobby of invoking the memory of the Holocaust and of crying antisemitism whenever Israel is accused of betraying America. “This is a sickening and deeply disturbing trend that must end,” Ritter writes.

Ritter was ignored when he said there were no WMD's in Iraq and he'll probably be ignored again.

Ritter is right, of course. America's Middle East foreign policy has been fully captured by Israel and it has been this way for years. The rot started on November 22 1963 by my reckoning, which is one of the reasons why I suspect Israeli involvement in the assassination.

Interestingly, Israel's aggression towards the Palestinians seems to be subject to more mainstream media scrutiny in Jerusalem than in Washington--testimony to the power of Israeli lobby's hold over the American media.

I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong.

I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.

The New York Times today prints a large photograph of a group of American troops with the caption underneath: "Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division boarded a plane yesterday in North Carolina. About 3,300 are to be sent to Kuwait by the end of the week."

Another ominous development is reported below:

Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf: sources

By Kristin Roberts Wed Jan 3, 4:40 PM ET

Reuters

The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bremerton, Washington-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the total to 16,000.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment, saying the Defense Department would not discuss future deployments or ship movements. But military analysts said the move was intended to demonstrate U.S. resolve in the face of acts by Iran and Syria that it sees as provocative, such as Tehran's pursuit of its nuclear program.

The Stennis had been scheduled to deploy to the Pacific region. But the Pentagon agreed instead to send the carrier group to the Gulf after a request from U.S. Central Command, the military command responsible for Middle East operations.

Senior defense officials have said that request was aimed at increasing Central Command's flexibility in a variety of operations and providing deterrence in the region.

INCREASED U.S. PRESENCE

Washington has locked horns with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program. American defense officials also regularly charge Iran and Syria with fanning sectarian violence in Iraq and contributing to the deteriorating situation there by providing arms and technologies.

The second carrier, while adding relatively few service members to the region, is valuable as a symbol of America's increased presence in the Gulf, military analysts said.

Longer term, however, the Bush administration must decide if it will keep two carrier groups in the Gulf indefinitely.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a response to any specific action by Iran.

"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."

That's terrible news.

The US wants the oil so bad they are willing to risk a conflict to get it.

Two years until the next US election is too long.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a response to any specific action by Iran.

"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."

I know, I know......If members find this repetative, or repulsive please ignore this thread, or ask Andy to remove it.

Rather than continue to take poor old Saddams thread of into the deep woods of controversy,I thought we could continue our discussion here Gentlemen. Perhaps Sid Walker, as he now admits, believes that the halocaust either, didnt happen, or was, grossly over played for Zionist ends would care to begin the debate by enlightening us with his, no doubt, reliable sources.

as you can see a little gentle sarcasm is allowed, but please, no name calling.

Dum de dum, hey what's this?

Nice shiny suicide hook, delectable worm dangling tortuously, invitingly, deliciously......HOT DOG!!!!

Hang on a minute. There's something strange here. That worm looks familiar. So do those fishermen, wearing the same old battered fishermen's hats. Hmmm.

I'm outta here.

Is it still possible to post text in color? I can't seem to find the icon.

On a positive note, the army of England supporters who have followed their side around this country have provided great entertainment, humour and color and given the series much of its carnival atmosphere.

Unlike supporters of other countries, they will support their side through good times and bad and are not afraid to show up en masse to proudly support them, even when their team is losing. They have an irrepressible spirit and a fine sense of humour. Top marks from me.