Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?

[Mark Stapleton]

Control? Just who's oil might the US "control passing through that pipeline? Sorry I just don't agree. Protect maybe, control, not likely.

I'll tell you what the US is attempting to garantee..the free flow of oil. Oil I might add that touches almost every human being on the planet. How many of those six billion people are going to eat if a good part of the worlds oil flow stops? Think about that one while you munch your commercial farm raised food today.

And of course its about money. You expect anything to happen for free?

The problem is with the US approach. Dwindling oil supplies coupled with rapidly increasing demand (mainly from China and India) is creating a situation which threatens to destabilise the world order. Unlike the US, countries like China are taking a pragmatic approach to the problem and entering co-operative trade agreements with nations around the globe. Late last year, Beijing hosted a conference with 48 African nations in attendance:

http://english.focacsummit.org/2006-11/05/content_5166.htm

The BOCAC summit was ostensibly about wider economic and trade co-operation but its implications for China's desire to tap into Africa's vast potential oil resources are apparent.

China, Russia and a host of African, Asian and South American nations are presently entering co-operative agreements in a bid to secure future energy requirements. China brings a lot of sweeteners into its deals as is has a large portable reserve of manpower which it can employ to assist third world nations in building infrastructure--roads, bridges, ports, hospitals etc. It also specifically avoids interfering in the host country's domestic affairs.

The contrast with the US approach is extreme. The US has a history of exploitation of foreign country's resources. The US bullies other nations into setting up an economic system which mirrors its own and which may be ill suited to that country's social and economic circumstances. It makes third world countries adhere to rigid World Bank edicts, such as fully privatising critical sectors so that foreign corporations--rather than the host nation's people--benefit from the nations resources. The US finances destabilisation of the political process in order to install meek puppets. And when all else fails, the US makes military threats.

The US is caught in the old cold war mindset while the world's other oil consumers and producers are getting their act together and and proving how obsolete the US approach has become.

The people currently in power in Washington are inept at this new global diplomacy. The only thing they know is ruthless exploitation, interference in other nations social and economic affairs and military intervention. I get the feeling that leaders like Putin and Chavez are very happy that Bush is President because they know how far they are leaving America behind.

An attack on Iran would be the last straw, imo, and would leave America totally and comprehensively isolated. A global pariah.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest David Guyatt]

And while Libya's oil fields are not the largest, it's crude is usually consdiered one of the sweetest around...

I've been trying to find a picture to speak a thousand words, but can't, so the following will have to do for the Afghanistan oil equation:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...=0#a021402bases

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route

Edit event

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” Ma’ariv also states, “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests… If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/2002]

David

PS, fancy that...

Protect the oil David...you want to eat, right?

Would the word "protect" be a million miles away from the word "control" Craig? "Control" as per my earlier post?

Yes, of course I want to eat. Six billion people want to every day. Does US hegemony guarantee that? Try imagining biting on an irradiated carrot as you consider the question.

This is about money, Bush's notoriously poor joke about the "have's and have more's"...

David

Control? Just who's oil might the US "control passing through that pipeline? Sorry I just don't agree. Protect maybe, control, not likely.

I'll tell you what the US is attempting to garantee..the free flow of oil. Oil I might add that touches almost every human being on the planet. How many of those six billion people are going to eat if a good part of the worlds oil flow stops? Think about that one while you munch your commercial farm raised food today.

And of course its about money. You expect anything to happen for free?

In your Santa world, where Uncle is really a nice, cuddly, red-faced reindeer guiding parcel delivery man, then yes, the US is protecting the flow of oil for the good of mankind.

In the other world, the one we actually live in, Uncle is solely in Afghnaistan to protect the investment of Unocol and the group of banks who have financed the trans Afghanistan pipeline. This is a corporate deal where the corporates rake in vast globs of money in exchange for the blood shed by the sons of Americans and British families for (what they believe) is some other lofty purpose. But it's not lofty at all. Just simple greed and control and to enhance the corporate bottomline.

Naturally, however, the cost of protecting the pipeline is placed squarely upon the shoulders of American and British taxpayers --- as is usual in these cases.

By controlling the flow of oil, the US controls the economic growth of other competitor nations, like China and India. They also have it in their power to control Europe, Japan and the Tiger economies if they so wish. So it really is about control and yes, you're also right -- it's about "protecting" elite interests also.

Now all of this is quite clear to those who have the time to search around the internet for information, but those who don't are are fed a pack of lies about why the US and UK are fighting in Afghnistan. The reason for this pack of lies is also quite obvious, too. If the whole public learned the reality they would rebel in droves.

That can't be allowed to happen and so, like mushrooms, the public are kept in the dark and fed BS.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

David

[Craig Lamson]

And while Libya's oil fields are not the largest, it's crude is usually consdiered one of the sweetest around...

I've been trying to find a picture to speak a thousand words, but can't, so the following will have to do for the Afghanistan oil equation:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...=0#a021402bases

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route

Edit event

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” Ma’ariv also states, “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests… If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/2002]

David

PS, fancy that...

Protect the oil David...you want to eat, right?

Would the word "protect" be a million miles away from the word "control" Craig? "Control" as per my earlier post?

Yes, of course I want to eat. Six billion people want to every day. Does US hegemony guarantee that? Try imagining biting on an irradiated carrot as you consider the question.

This is about money, Bush's notoriously poor joke about the "have's and have more's"...

David

Control? Just who's oil might the US "control passing through that pipeline? Sorry I just don't agree. Protect maybe, control, not likely.

I'll tell you what the US is attempting to garantee..the free flow of oil. Oil I might add that touches almost every human being on the planet. How many of those six billion people are going to eat if a good part of the worlds oil flow stops? Think about that one while you munch your commercial farm raised food today.

And of course its about money. You expect anything to happen for free?

In your Santa world, where Uncle is really a nice, cuddly, red-faced reindeer guiding parcel delivery man, then yes, the US is protecting the flow of oil for the good of mankind.

In the other world, the one we actually live in, Uncle is solely in Afghnaistan to protect the investment of Unocol and the group of banks who have financed the trans Afghanistan pipeline. This is a corporate deal where the corporates rake in vast globs of money in exchange for the blood shed by the sons of Americans and British families for (what they believe) is some other lofty purpose. But it's not lofty at all. Just simple greed and control and to enhance the corporate bottomline.

Naturally, however, the cost of protecting the pipeline is placed squarely upon the shoulders of American and British taxpayers --- as is usual in these cases.

By controlling the flow of oil, the US controls the economic growth of other competitor nations, like China and India. They also have it in their power to control Europe, Japan and the Tiger economies if they so wish. So it really is about control and yes, you're also right -- it's about "protecting" elite interests also.

Now all of this is quite clear to those who have the time to search around the internet for information, but those who don't are are fed a pack of lies about why the US and UK are fighting in Afghnistan. The reason for this pack of lies is also quite obvious, too. If the whole public learned the reality they would rebel in droves.

That can't be allowed to happen and so, like mushrooms, the public are kept in the dark and fed BS.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

David

Very old news David, we all read this stuff years ago. Got anything a BIT more recent?

In any case, this imaginary pipeline, is not the only exit for that oil now is it? How can we control that which is out of our control? Can a pipeline, yet to be built, control ANYTHING? Of course not. Well maybe in a your world, just not in the real world.

Anyone with a set of eyes and ears has heard all of this before. It not any great secret as you might wish to believe. The whole public does know. Where is your rebelion?

And btw, last I looked the was in Afganistan had a few more players than the US and the UK.

I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. So be it. Enjoy your day.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Very old news David, we all read this stuff years ago. Got anything a BIT more recent?

That's interesting Craig. I wasn't aware that extant facts had a shelf life and faded into non-existence...

In any case, this imaginary pipeline, is not the only exit for that oil now is it? How can we control that which is out of our control? Can a pipeline, yet to be built, control ANYTHING? Of course not. Well maybe in a your world, just not in the real world.

Yes, true proposed - but signed off on and with financing in place, which only leaves the pesky Taliban problem to be sorted out. Thus the arrival of US and UK fighting troops positioned along the route the pipeline will take. This "regime change" invasion took place after a US representative told the Taliban to accept financial greasing of their palms to permit the pipeline or else. The exact words, reported in the Asia Times of November 20, 2001:

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'" (see http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html for an informative article that shows the true nature of the pipeline, securing it away from Russian influence and placing it in US-UK control).

Anyone with a set of eyes and ears has heard all of this before. It not any great secret as you might wish to believe. The whole public does know. Where is your rebelion?

I disagree Craig. A great many people remain blinded by the spew of government propaganda that continues to swirl around this subject.

And btw, last I looked the was in Afganistan had a few more players than the US and the UK.

Are you fookin' joking, Craig. Blimey, members of NATO are wringing their hands at sending flower girls there. Despite calls for more assistance, the bulk of NATO shrugs its shoulders and looks the other way. About the only nation, besides the US and UK that permits its forces to be engaged in the South, where the fighting and killing takes place ('cos the Taliban is still there in force) is Canada. The bulk of the other nations of ISAF, just sit and drink coffee, swap dirty magazines and snap lazy salutes to officers out at Kabul International Airport -- while others do leaflet drops and reconstruction work in the safe zones.

I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. So be it. Enjoy your day.

Now that is true...

David

[Evan Burton]

I do have to admit that there is something to think about when we consider that we (because I consider Australia in this) were quite willing to go into Afghanistan and Iraq (which I initially agreed with, but now would like to see use with an exit strategy) but do not seem so eager to remove a dictatorship in Burma.

I might start a separate thread about it.

[Craig Lamson]

Very old news David, we all read this stuff years ago. Got anything a BIT more recent?

That's interesting Craig. I wasn't aware that extant facts had a shelf life and faded into non-existence...

Of course they do David. This is 2007, that was then. Where is the pipeline? Where is the news that the project will go forward? Where is ANYTHING new that shows the project is still even viable? Old news is just that..old news.

In any case, this imaginary pipeline, is not the only exit for that oil now is it? How can we control that which is out of our control? Can a pipeline, yet to be built, control ANYTHING? Of course not. Well maybe in a your world, just not in the real world.

Yes, true proposed - but signed off on and with financing in place, which only leaves the pesky Taliban problem to be sorted out. Thus the arrival of US and UK fighting troops positioned along the route the pipeline will take. This "regime change" invasion took place after a US representative told the Taliban to accept financial greasing of their palms to permit the pipeline or else. The exact words, reported in the Asia Times of November 20, 2001:

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'" (see http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html for an informative article that shows the true nature of the pipeline, securing it away from Russian influence and placing it in US-UK control).

Exact words of whom? Nice article, full of unsourced conjecture.

Anyone with a set of eyes and ears has heard all of this before. It not any great secret as you might wish to believe. The whole public does know. Where is your rebelion?

I disagree Craig. A great many people remain blinded by the spew of government propaganda that continues to swirl around this subject.

If they were listening AT ALL they heard this one. It was a staple of he anti war crowd.

And btw, last I looked the was in Afganistan had a few more players than the US and the UK.

Are you fookin' joking, Craig. Blimey, members of NATO are wringing their hands at sending flower girls there. Despite calls for more assistance, the bulk of NATO shrugs its shoulders and looks the other way. About the only nation, besides the US and UK that permits its forces to be engaged in the South, where the fighting and killing takes place ('cos the Taliban is still there in force) is Canada. The bulk of the other nations of ISAF, just sit and drink coffee, swap dirty magazines and snap lazy salutes to officers out at Kabul International Airport -- while others do leaflet drops and reconstruction work in the safe zones.

And that is usually the posture of NATO members and troops. However They are there and there is support.

I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. So be it. Enjoy your day.

Now that is true...

David

Edited October 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

Scott Ritter thinks only the antiwar movement can prevent the inexorable drift into war with Iran:

The administration always heeded the justifications for aborting an attack, primarily because there was time still left on the clock, so to speak. But time is running out. Israel has drawn a red line across the calendar, indicating that if Iran has not pulled back from its nuclear ambitions by the end of 2007, military action in early spring 2008 will be inevitable. The attack on Syria by Israel sent a clear message that attacks are feasible. The continued emphasis by the Bush administration on Iran as a terror state, combined with the fact that the administration seems inclined to blame its continuing problems in Iraq on Iran, and not failed policy, means that there is no shortage of fuel to stoke the fire of public opinion regarding war with Iran. Add in the “reality” of weapons of mass destruction, and war becomes inevitable, regardless of the veracity of the “reality” being presented

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63800

Edited October 5, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[John Simkin]

Report on the BBC website:

The Iraq conflict has wreaked "terrible damage" on the region - far more than has been acknowledged, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said. Dr Rowan Williams said "urgent attention" was needed to stabilise the country. His comments followed a visit to Syria to meet Iraqi refugees. He said talking to the refugees had been "heartbreaking and harrowing".

A survey published in September 2007 suggested that up to 1.2m people might have died because of the Iraq conflict. Speaking following his visit, Dr Williams said: "The events of the last few years have done terrible damage in the whole of this region and many people, I know, do not see the cost in human terms of the war which was unleashed.

"Security that will enable these people to return to Iraq depends on a settlement for the whole of that country guaranteeing the liberty and dignity of every minority." About half a million refugees have fled Iraq for Syria since the conflict began in 2003.

Dr Williams said many of the people he had met told him they left the war-torn country because their families had been kidnapped, executed or told they would be killed unless they paid ransoms. The archbishop added that the refugees had told him their circumstances were desperate and unsustainable, with no hope either of a safe return to Iraq or of citizenship in Syria or elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7029712.stm

Later, on BBC radio, Dr. Williams warned against any military attack on Syria and Iran. If it happened it would be an act of criminal folly.

[Michael Hogan]

Petraeus: 'Show me' if Iran has stopped supplying Iraqi insurgents

From CNN's Jim Clancy

FORWARD OPERATING BASE CALDWELL, Iraq (CNN) -- Although America's top general in Iraq called al Qaeda "the wolf closest to the sled," he said sectarian fighting among militias fueled by Iran could be the biggest long-term challenge for Iraq.

Petraeus says Iran must prove it is no longer supplying weapons to Iraq militias.

"Militias could potentially be the long-term problem for Iraq, if you assume that we can continue to make progress against al Qaeda," Gen. David Petraeus told CNN's Jim Clancy near the Iranian border in Iraq's Diyala province.

Petraeus is in a "show-me mode," waiting to see if Iran honors a pledge to stop the flow of arms, money and training from Iran into Iraq that has helped both Shiite and Sunni militants.....

Full story: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10...ref=mpstoryview

[Michael Hogan]

Cheney: 'We Will Not Allow' Iran Nukes; Vice President Threatens 'Serious' Consequences

By JOHN HENDREN

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21, 2007

ABC News

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?i...7406&page=1

[Mark Stapleton]

How about that George Bush.

In his recent speech to the National Defence University, he's now saying Iran will develop IBM's capable of reaching North America and Europe by 2015:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916320.html

Oooh, so very scary. Let's hit 'em now!

What Bush wants the world to believe now is that those crazy Mullahs, consumed with a seething hatred for the west and its freedoms, are feverishly working to produce nuclear weapons of awesome capability (and a delivery system to match), while the West sleeps, oblivious to this horrific menace.

Once they have completed the evil task of creating these weapons, they will immediately launch a war they cannot hope to win and which would most assuredly wipe Iran off the map.

They hate our freedoms so much they will self-destruct in order to prove it. They have no friends or families, meaningful lives or fulfilling pursuits which make life worthwhile. No, no. They just want to destroy the West and I've already said why--they hate our freedom.

Are you with us now? 'Cause if not, you must love nukular ormed terists.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Mark, interestingly, the current British TV drama series SPOOKS (BBC 1), with three parts braodcast to date, thus far revolves around the issue of the US seeking to pick a fight with Iran, and the dirty tricks it covertly engages in to ensure this sparks war.

At least the British public cannot claim to be entirely misinformed about the issue in the event that Brown (who refuses to rule out British involvement with the US in an attack on Iran (as of today at PMQ's in Parliament) proceeds with the usual back America-at-any-cost policy of successive British governments.

If the US does initiate a military attack for "regime change" ("that oil is ours boyo's") then Blighty will, I predict, drop its pants for President Merkin.

It's business as usual.

But sooner or later the deep-rooted upswell of public antogonism for backing the US, come what may and in all matters, is going to wreck political havoc here.

David

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, interestingly, the current British TV drama series SPOOKS (BBC 1), with three parts braodcast to date, thus far revolves around the issue of the US seeking to pick a fight with Iran, and the dirty tricks it covertly engages in to ensure this sparks war.

At least the British public cannot claim to be entirely misinformed about the issue in the event that Brown (who refuses to rule out British involvement with the US in an attack on Iran (as of today at PMQ's in Parliament) proceeds with the usual back America-at-any-cost policy of successive British governments.

If the US does initiate a military attack for "regime change" ("that oil is ours boyo's") then Blighty will, I predict, drop its pants for President Merkin.

It's business as usual.

But sooner or later the deep-rooted upswell of public antogonism for backing the US, come what may and in all matters, is going to wreck political havoc here.

David

David,

Yes, Gordon Brown's statements about Iran are a bit worrying but whether he goes along with Bush in a scheme as crazy as this remains to be seen. The leadership of Canada and France also seem to be at odds with public sentiment on this issue.

Here in Australia, there is an election campaign in progress (incumbent Bush poodle John Howard is trailing by 16 points on a two party preferred basis ), so he hasn't dared to insult the public's intelligence by echoing Bush's infant school reasoning when it comes to attacking Iran. Howard said yesterday that he favors negotiation with Iran.

It will be interesting to see who supports Bush if he carries out his threats.

I think the most likely scenario is that if an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities does occur, it will be Israel who carries it out.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest David Guyatt]

David,

Yes, Gordon Brown's statements about Iran are a bit worrying but whether he goes along with Bush in a scheme as crazy as this remains to be seen. The leadership of Canada and France also seem to be at odds with public sentiment on this issue.

Here in Australia, there is an election campaign in progress (incumbent Bush poodle John Howard is trailing by 16 points on a two party preferred basis ), so he hasn't dared to insult the public's intelligence by echoing Bush's infant school reasoning when it comes to attacking Iran. Howard said yesterday that he favors negotiation with Iran.

It will be interesting to see who supports Bush if he carries out his threats.

I think the most likely scenario is that if an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities does occur, it will be Israel who carries it out.

Mark, the fear is, I think, that politicians always speak with forked tongues. They say one thing then do the other, lulling the public into a false sense of security and then hitting them hard and suddenly once their guard has been dropped. Since the whole gameplan is oil, then I can well see the UK dropping its knickers and laying back for England.

But you may well be right about Israel at least initially. But since I do believe it is the oil card that is being played here, then Israel styriking Iran's nuclear facilities is just a teaser. There will need to be regime change and troops on the ground to effect control of the Iranian oilfields which are amongst the largest in the world.

David

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, the fear is, I think, that politicians always speak with forked tongues. They say one thing then do the other, lulling the public into a false sense of security and then hitting them hard and suddenly once their guard has been dropped. Since the whole gameplan is oil, then I can well see the UK dropping its knickers and laying back for England.

But you may well be right about Israel at least initially. But since I do believe it is the oil card that is being played here, then Israel styriking Iran's nuclear facilities is just a teaser. There will need to be regime change and troops on the ground to effect control of the Iranian oilfields which are amongst the largest in the world.

David

I agree that oil is part of the gameplan, but not the whole gameplan. Israel and its lobby groups are pushing hard for a strike on Iran, just as they did with Iraq. It was Israel who supplied the critical intelligence about Saddam's WMD's (incorrect intelligence, of course), in the days leading up to the invasion. And I can see the UK dropping its knickers just as readily for Israel.

If America seeks control of Iran via regime change, rather than their stated aim of merely disabling Iran's nuclear capabilities, then it really will be WW3. How stupid and dangerous would a ground invasion of Iran be? Iran's been making preparations. The casualties would be enormous and the invaders would find that unlike Iraq where Sunni and Shia are fighting each other as well as the US troops, the local resistance, entirely Shia, would focus solely on them.

They would also run up against strong opposition from Russia. Putin's latest warning, concerning America's proposal for stronger sanctions, describes the US as like 'a madman running around with a blade in one's hand'.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...3e4&k=59910

I agree with Putin.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Mark Stapleton