Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?

[Charles Drago]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The goal is not resolution of conflict, but controlled perpetuation of conflict.

The replacement for the economic engine that was the Cold War has been found. Who among its beneficiaries would be crazy enough to dismantle it?

Aramageddon's just another word for loss of market share.

Weapons of mass destruction?

Uh-uh.

Weapons of mass oppression?

You got it, brother.

Don't be afraid that the end of days is at hand.

There's no profit in it.

But there's definitely a prophet.

Charles

Edited October 26, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Dawn Meredith]

The neo-cons are using the exact same language for a "pre-emptive strike on Iran" that they used for Iraq.

It is indeed terrifying. Because this time they are talking nuclear. Even Condi Rice, who was at least pretending to employ diplomacy, is jumping on the bandwagon.

The terrible fires we had in CA. all week were being called "terrorism" for a few days. Now just the word "arson' is being used.

When you have the likes of Bush using the words "world war three" one has to be most worried.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Dawn,

To me, the bottom line -- and I use the term in its twin meanings -- is that an attack on Iran will happen if it has been deemed to be profitable and controllable.

Bush is irrelevant. Also, profitable and controllable.

The CA fires terrorism card nearly was played. Did anyone else hear a report of the shooting to death, by police, of at least one arsonist caught in the act?

Charles

[Mark Stapleton]

The neo-cons are using the exact same language for a "pre-emptive strike on Iran" that they used for Iraq.

It is indeed terrifying. Because this time they are talking nuclear. Even Condi Rice, who was at least pretending to employ diplomacy, is jumping on the bandwagon.

The terrible fires we had in CA. all week were being called "terrorism" for a few days. Now just the word "arson' is being used.

When you have the likes of Bush using the words "world war three" one has to be most worried.

Dawn

Luckily, talking nuclear strike and doing it are two different things. But Bush is so stupid that maybe he thinks that bringing on a nuclear winter might be the answer to........global warming!

p.s. Those fires in California were a real shocker, Dawn. We get severe bushfires here in Australia every summer and its getting worse every year as the temperature increases and the rainfall decreases. Incredible that those fires were referred to as terrorism--the media's obsession was clearly on display.

[Mark Stapleton]

To me, the bottom line -- and I use the term in its twin meanings -- is that an attack on Iran will happen if it has been deemed to be profitable and controllable.

Bush is irrelevant. Also, profitable and controllable.

Charles

You're probably right Charles, although I would add the caveat that it must also be politically justifiable. Any attack must have some plausible pretext to sell to the public. With Iran there's none. The IAEA has no unresolvable problem with Iran which justifies invasion, or even harsh sanctions. Nukes in Iran are still years away, assuming Iran still wants to build them.

Like Putin says, America has become a madman wielding a blade. A rabid dog.

[Charles Drago]

Agreed, Mark, on the "politically justifiable" bit.

But America's body politic -- bent at the waist, hands gripping ankles -- hardly may be described as a "tough crowd" (as in "difficult audience").

How hard a sell do you think the Colbys and Lamsons, in their wooly millions, would require before they bought in?

Putin is wrong. There is nothing mad about them. They are cold, calculating, brilliant (the shepherds, not the sheep). We diminish them at our own peril.

These people are not insane.

They are evil incarnate.

Charles

[Craig Lamson]

Agreed, Mark, on the "politically justifiable" bit.

But America's body politic -- bent at the waist, hands gripping ankles -- hardly may be described as a "tough crowd" (as in "difficult audience").

How hard a sell do you think the Colbys and Lamsons, in their wooly millions, would require before they bought in?

Putin is wrong. There is nothing mad about them. They are cold, calculating, brilliant (the shepherds, not the sheep). We diminish them at our own peril.

These people are not insane.

They are evil incarnate.

Charles

Ah the MILLIONS of us who actually UNDERSTAND the implications of a nuclear Iran, unlike the cowardly and quite nutless lefties, have already bought in. Part of the problem is the left, with it's blinders on can't see who is evil and who is not. Your post makes that perfectly clear.

The left is bending at the waist for the Mullahs...

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Charles Drago' date='Oct 26 2007, 07:39 PM' post='124424']

Dawn,

To me, the bottom line -- and I use the term in its twin meanings -- is that an attack on Iran will happen if it has been deemed to be profitable and controllable.

Bush is irrelevant. Also, profitable and controllable.

The CA fires terrorism card nearly was played. Did anyone else hear a report of the shooting to death, by police, of at least one arsonist caught in the act?

Charles

Charles:

yes, I did hear of the shooting death. I wish I could share your view that such an attack would be "controllable".

I think Cheney and Co. are dangerous and beyond scary. Remember this is, after all, "the axis of evil".

The US- has also brought back the Cold War, only this time it's blazing. The US is in a most dangerous and vulnerable position in the world. The bullies of the universe, and who can blame the rest of the planet for looking with scorn at the US?

Yup it's all about oil. But it is also out of control,imho.

Dawn

[Mark Stapleton]

Agreed, Mark, on the "politically justifiable" bit.

But America's body politic -- bent at the waist, hands gripping ankles -- hardly may be described as a "tough crowd" (as in "difficult audience").

How hard a sell do you think the Colbys and Lamsons, in their wooly millions, would require before they bought in?

Putin is wrong. There is nothing mad about them. They are cold, calculating, brilliant (the shepherds, not the sheep). We diminish them at our own peril.

These people are not insane.

They are evil incarnate.

Charles

It didn't take Craig very long to prove your assertion, Charles. Just 37 minutes.

Life would be so much easier for the neocons if everyone was as naive as Craig.

[Craig Lamson]

Agreed, Mark, on the "politically justifiable" bit.

But America's body politic -- bent at the waist, hands gripping ankles -- hardly may be described as a "tough crowd" (as in "difficult audience").

How hard a sell do you think the Colbys and Lamsons, in their wooly millions, would require before they bought in?

Putin is wrong. There is nothing mad about them. They are cold, calculating, brilliant (the shepherds, not the sheep). We diminish them at our own peril.

These people are not insane.

They are evil incarnate.

Charles

It didn't take Craig very long to prove your assertion, Charles. Just 37 minutes.

Life would be so much easier for the neocons if everyone was as naive as Craig.

Who is naive Mark? Your posts make a pretty good case for you being the naive one here, among others. How do you like bending over for the mullahs? If we listen to you we would find that Iran is just a peace loving country with no designs towards anyone. Those nukes they want to build are just for self defence. They just want to get along with everyone, and all of this is just some sad joke created by the evil Jooos.

12th Iman? No problem. Israel's gotta go? No problem. New caliphate? No problem. Disrupt any progress towards a state of Palistine that does not include the land of Israel? No problem. Keep Syria well armed? No problem NUKES AND LONG RANGE MISSLES TO SUPPORT THOSE AIMS? No problem. A whole bunch of naive people thought that Nazi Germany was no problem....

Edited October 27, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

Who is naive Mark? Your posts make a pretty good case for you being the naive one here, among others. How do you like bending over for the mullahs? If we listen to you we would find that Iran is just a peace loving country with no designs towards anyone. Those nukes they want to build are just for self defence. They just want to get along with everyone, and all of this is just some sad joke created by the evil Jooos.

12th Iman? No problem. Israel's gotta go? No problem. New caliphate? No problem. Disrupt any progress towards a state of Palistine that does not include the land of Israel? No problem. Keep Syria well armed? No problem NUKES AND LONG RANGE MISSLES TO SUPPORT THOSE AIMS? No problem. A whole bunch of naive people thought that Nazi Germany was no problem....

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

So you think Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel and the US? I assume that means you believe the Iranian leadership is suicidal? Can you show me any evidence? I don't mean physical evidence but any observation you have made that would indicate the Iranians are determined to destroy themselves and their country.

I have an open mind and if you can show me any evidence that this is the case I will change my mind. Can't do better than that. I'm offering you a free shot at the goal and if you score, I'll concede right here.

btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.

We're grown ups.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Craig Lamson]

Who is naive Mark? Your posts make a pretty good case for you being the naive one here, among others. How do you like bending over for the mullahs? If we listen to you we would find that Iran is just a peace loving country with no designs towards anyone. Those nukes they want to build are just for self defence. They just want to get along with everyone, and all of this is just some sad joke created by the evil Jooos.

12th Iman? No problem. Israel's gotta go? No problem. New caliphate? No problem. Disrupt any progress towards a state of Palistine that does not include the land of Israel? No problem. Keep Syria well armed? No problem NUKES AND LONG RANGE MISSLES TO SUPPORT THOSE AIMS? No problem. A whole bunch of naive people thought that Nazi Germany was no problem....

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?

So you think Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel and the US? I assume that means you believe the Iranian leadership is suicidal? Can you show me any evidence?

Quite possible. Pretty much required for the return of the 12th Imam. In any case yes...the leasdership of Iran is quite suicidal. Pretty much standard stuff for extreme hardline Muslims. But the again if you listen to the current bluster from Iran they are not planning on losing

I don't mean physical evidence but any observation you have made that would indicate the Iranians are determined to destroy themselves and their country.

See above, a very good place to start.

I have an open mind and if you can show me any evidence that this is the case I will change my mind. Can't do better than that. I'm offering you a free shot at the goal and if you score, I'll concede right here.

Lets start here.

Ahmadinejad is dangerous as it is, given his apparent disposition, as the president of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But as the president of a nuclear armed nation, the situation could be untenable.

"Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ‘potentially’ irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam."

http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/

and here:

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

By Anton La Guardia

Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.

We're grown ups.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Guest David Guyatt]

Craig, you might consider being cautious citing the Daily (or Sunday) Telegraph in support of your posts. It has long been known in the UK as the "Daily Bellylaugh". It is often fingered for taking planted stories from the intelligence and security services. It is the newspaper reccomended by the MoD to all officers of the military forces of the UK - a sort of privately owned cross between the in-house rag of the spook comunity (presuming they have one) and Stars and Stripes. Not the most unbiased rag, in other words.

The Telegraph Group used to be owned by the unpleasant and crooked Conrad Black (Hollinger Corp). After Conrad Black's disgrace, the Telegraph was bought out by the Irish based Barclay Brothers (Sirs David and Frederick), who operate out of the secretive Channel Islands. Very little is known about them...

David

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, you might consider being cautious citing the Daily (or Sunday) Telegraph in support of your posts. It has long been known in the UK as the "Daily Bellylaugh". It is often fingered for taking planted stories from the intelligence and security services. It is the newspaper reccomended by the MoD to all officers of the military forces of the UK - a sort of privately owned cross between the in-house rag of the spook comunity (presuming they have one) and Stars and Stripes. Not the most unbiased rag, in other words.

The Telegraph Group used to be owned by the unpleasant and crooked Conrad Black (Hollinger Corp). After Conrad Black's disgrace, the Telegraph was bought out by the Irish based Barclay Brothers (Sirs David and Frederick), who operate out of the secretive Channel Islands. Very little is known about them...

David

I'm not really concerned with bias at this point because what I posted was opinion, but thanks. ANd besides, there is, in my opinion, no unbiased sources. The only difference is that some are quite honest about thier bias and others are not.

Quite frankly I prefer a source that openly states the side of the fence where they stand....

[Mark Stapleton]

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?

For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran.

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment:

http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general

Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible.

I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing.