Discussion:
Preparations for US Strike on Iran in Final Stages
(too old to reply)
s***@yahoo.ca
2006-01-05 07:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Probably likely even *more* pertinent now that Ariel Sharon
iz on his deathbed.......

Likely to be brought forward to early March 2006 (or even February
2006) depending on the situation at the time.....

HOOROO

UNCLE WALLY

=======================


Jan 5, 6:07 pm From: "al953" <***@xyz.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006
23:07:46 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 5 2006 6:07 pm
Subject: Preparations for US Strike on Iran in Final Stages

Preparations for US Strike on Iran in Final Stages


Wayne Madsen â?" Wayne Madsen Report January 2, 2006


Intelligence indications and warnings abound as Bush administration
finalizes military attack on Iran.


Intelligence and military sources in the United States and abroad are
reporting on various factors that indicate a U.S. military hit on
Iranian
nuclear and military installations, that may involve tactical nuclear
weapons, is in the final stages of preparation. Likely targets for
saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian
and
other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site
in
Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in
Natanz, a
heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan
Nuclear
Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology
Center in
Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum,
Iodine
and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan
Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran
suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar
Abad,
and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak.


Other first targets would be Shahab-I, II, and III missile launch
sites, air
bases (including the large Mehrabad air base/international airport near

Tehran), naval installations on the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea,
command,
control, communications and intelligence facilities. Secondary targets
would
include civilian airports, radio and TV installations,
telecommunications
centers, government buildings, conventional power plants, highways and
bridges, and rail lines. Oil installations and commercial port
facilities
would likely be relatively untouched by U.S. forces in order to
preserve
them for U.S. oil and business interests.


There has been a rapid increase in training and readiness at a number
of
U.S. military installations involved with the planned primarily aerial
attack. These include a Pentagon order to Fort Rucker, Alabama, to be
prepared to handle an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 trainees, including
civilian contractors, who will be deployed for Iranian combat
operations.
Rucker is home to the US Army's aviation training command, including
the
helicopter training school.


In addition, there has been an increase in readiness at nearby Hurlburt

Field in Florida, the home of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations
Command.
The U.S. attack on Iran will primarily involve aviation (Navy, Air
Force,
Navy-Marine Corps) and special operations assets.


There has also been a noticeable increase in activity at Marine Corps
Air
Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California, a primary live
fire
training activity located in a desert and mountainous environment
similar to
target areas in Iran.
From European intelligence agencies comes word that the United States
has
told its NATO allies to be prepared for a military strike on Iranian
nuclear
development and military installations.


On November 17, 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin spent seven
hours in
secret discussions with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
during
the the opening ceremonies in Samsun, Turkey for the Russian-Turkish
underwater Blue Stream natural gas pipeline, festivities also attended
by
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.


According to sources knowledgeable about the meeting, Erdogan promised
Putin, who has become a close friend, that Turkey would not support the
use
of its bases by the United States in a military attack on Iran. That
brought
a series of high level visits to Turkey by Bush administration
officials,
including CIA chief Porter Goss, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and
Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice.


Although Erdogan listened to Goss's and Rice's pleas for Turkish
logistical,
political, and intelligence help for an attack on Iran and Turkish Army

Chief Yasar Buyukanit heard much the same from Pentagon officials
during his
recent trip to Washington, the word is that Putin now has enough clout
in
Ankara to scuttle any use of Turkey by the U.S. for an attack on Iran.
[Mueller delivered Ankara intelligence "proof" of Iranian backing for
Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas in Turkey. Intelligence
agencies and
business intelligence units around the world are now discounting any
intelligence coming from the Bush administration as neocon propaganda
invented by think tanks and discredited intelligence agencies in
Washington,
Tel Aviv-Herzliya, and Jerusalem].


U.S. political and military officials have also approached Bahrain,
Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Oman, and Azerbaijan seeking their support
for a
U.S. attack on Iran. Ina replay of the phony pre-war intelligence on
Iraq,
Washington is trying to convince various countries that a link exists
between Iran and "Al Qaeda."


Polish intelligence sources report that Poland's Defense Minister Radek

Sikorski assured Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of Poland's support
for
any U.S. strike against Iran. Sikorski is a former American Enterprise
Institute colleague of such neo-cons as Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen,
and
Lynne Cheney, the so-called "Second Lady" of the United States.
Sikorski and
Polish Foreign Minister Stefan Meller assured Rumsfeld and Rice,
respectively, that Poland would stand by the United States during the
split
in NATO that will occur as a result of the American strike. Polish
intelligence sources, who are unhappy with the arrangement of the new
right-wing government in Warsaw with the Bush administration, leaked
the
information about the recent U.S. demarche to NATO in Brussels about
preparation for the attack.


Similar intelligence "leaks" about the U.S. attack plans were also
leaked to
the German magazine Der Spiegel.


European intelligence sources also report that the recent decision by
Putin
and Russia's state-owned Gazprom natural gas company to cut supplied of

natural gas to Ukraine was a clear warning by Putin to nations like
Ukraine,
Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Moldova,
France, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, and Germany that it
would
do the same if they support the U.S. attack on Iran. Gazprom natural
gas is
supplied, via pipelines in Ukraine, from Russia and Turkmenistan to
countries in Eastern and Western Europe. The Bush administration
charged
Russia with using gas supplies as a "political tool."


Putin has additional leverage on Western Europe since former German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accepted an appointment to the board of a
joint
Russian-German North European Gas Pipeline Consortium that is
controlled by
Gazprom. The pipeline will bring Russian gas to Scandinavia, Germany,
Netherlands, and Britain, giving Putin additional leverage over
Washington
in Europe.


Southeast Asian intelligence sources report that Burma's (Myanmar's)
recent
abrupt decision to move its capital from Rangoon (Yangon) to remote
Pyinmana, 200 miles to the north, is a result of Chinese intelligence
warnings to its Burmese allies about the effects of radiation resulting
from
a U.S. conventional or tactical nuclear attack on Iranian nuclear
facilities. There is concern that a series of attacks on Iranian
nuclear
installations will create a Chernobyl-like radioactive cloud that would
be
caught up in monsoon weather in the Indian Ocean.


Low-lying Rangoon lies in the path of monsoon rains that would continue
to
carry radioactive fallout from Iran over South and Southeast Asia
between
May and October. Coastal Indian Ocean cities like Rangoon, Dhaka,
Calcutta,
Mumbai, Chennai, and Colombo would be affected by the radioactive
fallout
more than higher elevation cities since humidity intensifies the
effects of
the fallout. Thousands of government workers were given only two days'
notice to pack up and leave Rangoon for the higher (and dryer)
mountainous
Pyinmana.


In neighboring West Bengal, the leftist government and its national
leftist
allies around the country are planning massive demonstrations during
Bush's
upcoming trip to India. They are protesting the war in Iraq as well as
the
threats against Iran.


Reports from Yemen indicate that western oil companies are concerned
about
U.S. intentions in Iran since the southern Arabian country catches the
edge
of the monsoon rains that could contain radioactive fallout from an
attack,
endangering their workers in the country.


The Bush administration aborted last minute plans to attack Iranian
nuclear
and political installations prior to the 2004 presidential election. On

October 9, Rumsfeld met with defense minister colleagues on the now
decommissioned USS John F. Kennedy in the Persian Gulf to seek support
for
the attack. That meeting has been confirmed by the Danish Defense
Minister
who was in attendance, however, the topic of the meeting was not
discussed.
According to U.S. naval personnel on board the Kennedy, a special "war
room"
was set up to coordinate the attack. Britain, Australia, Italy,
Netherlands,
and Japan did not attend the meeting because of their opposition to the

attack plans.


Intelligence and military officials around the world are also bracing
for
the results of a U.S. attack on Iran. This includes the distinct
possibility
of a major Shia retaliatory attack in Iraq, the Eastern Province of
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and
Afghanistan
against U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic targets in the region.
Radioactive fallout from a conventional or tactical nuclear attack on
Iran
will result in major problems with Pakistan, India, China, Russia,
Japan,
and other downwind countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim, possibly
including
the fall of the Pervez Musharraf government in Pakistan and replacement
by a
radical Islamist regime having possession of nuclear weapons. That
would
provoke a military response from nuclear power India.


In a counter-attack, Iran would immediately launch its Shahab I and II
missiles at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad, the Al Udeid airbase in
Qatar,
the US Navy base in Bahrain, Camp Doha base in Kuwait, Al Seeb airbase
in
Oman, Baghdad International Airport, the U.S. base in Kandahar,
Afghanistan.
Iran would also launch its long-range Shahab III missiles on the
Israeli
cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, Eilat, and the Israeli nuclear
complex
at Dimona. Iranian missiles would also be launched at US naval ships in
the
Persian Gulf and oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.


The virtual end of NATO as a viable defense organization may also
result
from an attack that will drive a final wedge between Washington and
Europe.
And China may elect to respond financially and militarily against the
United
States since Iran is China's second largest source of imported Middle
East
oil after Saudi Arabia and plans to use an Iranian terminal for the
export
of natural gas from Turkmenistan. [China now imports 60 percent of its
oil
needs, and Iran represents 17 percent of those imports].


Russia recently participated in, through the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), a three-way military exercise (code named "Indira
2005")
between Russia, China, and India to prepare for any new U.S. power
projections in Asia, including an attack on Iran, a prospective SCO
member.
Last August, Russia and China held their first-ever joint land-sea-air
military exercises.


Iran also held a large military exercise in early December in Bandar
Abbas
on the Gulf. An Iranian C-130 carrying Iranian journalists from
Mehrabad
airport to Bandar to cover the exercise crashed into a Tehran apartment

building on December 6, killing at least 116 people, including 68
journalists.


Within the U.S. military and across the globe, there is heightened
tension
about the intentions of the neocon Bush administration and its allies
in
Israel.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
hooroo™ ♥ œŸ©ª±Ç¶ ♥ Xa Ta Zac Xa Ta Amac ♥™
2006-01-05 07:47:52 UTC
Permalink
James Petras - Israel's War with Iran - the unabridged version
James Petras, peacepalestine



December 28, 2005

thanks to Jeff Blankfort for sending the complete and unabridged
version of this important article which appeared in Counterpunch in an
edited form.

Israel’s War with Iran: The Coming Mid East Conflagration
-or-
Israel Bombs Iran: The US Suffers the Consequences

Israel’s political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly
declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate
future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel’s war
policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential
and Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli
government and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran’s
nuclear threat are without substance or fact and have aroused
opposition and misgivings throughout the world, among European
governments, international agencies, among most US military leaders and
the public, the world oil industry and even among sectors of the Bush
Administration.

An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have catastrophic
military consequences for US forces and severe loss of human life in
Iraq, most likely ignite political and military violence against pro-US
Arab-Muslim regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading to
their overthrow.

Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate
threat to world peace and political stability.

Israel’s War Preparations
Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as
Israel’s forthcoming military attack against Iran. When the Israeli
Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was
ready to go to stop Iran’s nuclear energy program, he said "Two
thousand kilometers" – the distance of an air assault (Financial
Times (FT) Dec 12, 2005). More specifically Israeli military sources
reveal that Israel’s current and probably next Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon ordered Israel’s armed forces to prepare for air strikes on
uranium enrichment sites in Iran (Times (London), Dec 11, 2005).
According to the London Times the order to prepare for attack went
through the Israeli defense ministry to the Chief of Staff. During the
first week in December, "…sources inside the special forces command
confirmed that 'G’ readiness – the highest state – for an
operation was announced" (Times, Dec. 11, 2005).

On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that
in view of Teheran’s nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on
diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions." (La Jornada, Dec.
10, 2005) In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military
intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by
the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the
Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say
that the international effort has run its course" (Times, Dec. 11,
2005).

In plain Hebrew, if international diplomatic negotiations fail to
comply with Israel’s timetable, Israel will unilaterally, militarily
attack Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and
candidate for Prime Minister stated that if Sharon did not act against
Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March
2006 elections) we’ll do what we did in the past against Saddam’s
reactor." (Times Dec 11, 2005). In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak
nuclear reactor in Iraq. Even the pro-Labor newspaper, Haaretz, while
disagreeing with the time and place of Netanyahu’s pronouncements,
agreed with its substance. Haaretz criticized "(those who) publicly
recommend an Israeli military option…" because it "presents Israel as
pushing (via powerful pro-Israel organizations in the US) the United
States into a major war." However, Haaretz adds… "Israel must go
about making its preparations quietly and securely – not at election
rallies." (Haaretz, Dec 6, 2005) Haaretz’s position, like that of the
Labor Party, is that Israel not advocate war against Iran before
multi-lateral negotiations are over and the International Atomic Energy
Agency makes a decision.

In other words, the Israeli "debate" among the elite is not over
whether to go to war but over the place to discuss war plans and the
timing to launch war. Implicitly Haaretz recognizes the role played by
pro-Israeli organizations in "pushing the US into the Iraq war",
perhaps a word of caution, resulting from increased US opposition to
the activities of the Israel First campaigners in Congress (see below).

Israeli public opinion apparently does not share the political
elite’s plans for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program.
A survey in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, reported by Reuters
(Dec. 16, 2005) shows that 58% of the Israelis polled believed the
dispute over Iran’s nuclear program should be handled diplomatically
while only 36% said its reactors should be destroyed in a military
strike.

Israel’s War Deadline
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March as the
deadline for launching a military assault on Iran. The thinking behind
this date is to heighten the pressure on the US to force the sanctions
issue in the Security Council. The tactic is to blackmail Washington
with the "war or else" threat, into pressuring Europe (namely Great
Britain, France, Germany and Russia) into approving sanctions. Israel
knows that its acts of war will endanger thousands of American soldiers
in Iraq, and it knows that Washington (and Europe) cannot afford a
third war at this time. The end of March date also coincides with the
IAEA report to the UN on Iran’s nuclear energy program. Israeli
policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at
least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its
overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify
Israeli military action. Fixing a March date also intensifies the
political activities of the pro-Israel organizations in the United
States. The major pro-Israel lobbies have lined up a majority in the US
Congress and Senate to push for the UN Security Council to implement
economic sanctions against Iran or, failing that, endorse Israeli
"defensive" action. Thousands of pro-Israel national, local and
community groups and individuals have been mobilized to promote the
Israeli agenda via the mass media and visits to US Congressional
representatives. The war agenda also plays on exploiting the tactical
disputes among the civilian militarists within the White House, between
Cheney, Bolton and Abrams on one side and Rice and Rumsfeld on the
other. The Cheney line has always supported an Israeli military attack,
while Rice promotes the tactic of "forced failure" of the European
diplomatic route before taking decisive action. Rumsfeld, under
tremendous pressure from practically all of the top professional
military officials, fears that an Israeli war will further accelerate
US military losses. The pro-Israel lobby would like to replace the
ultra-militarist Rumsfeld with the ultra-militarist Senator Joseph
Lieberman, an unconditional Israel First Zealot.

US-Israeli Disagreements on an Iran War
As Israel marches inexorably toward war with Iran, disputes with
Washington have surfaced. The conflicts and mutual attacks extend
throughout the state institutions, and into the public discourse.
Supporters and opponents of Israel’s war policy represent powerful
segments of state institutions and civil society. On the side of the
Israeli war policy are practically all the major and most influential
Jewish organizations, the pro-Israeli lobbies, their political action
committees, a sector of the White House, a majority of subsidized
Congressional representatives and state, local and party leaders. On
the other side are sectors of the Pentagon, State Department, a
minority of Congressional members, a majority of public opinion, a
minority of American Jews (Union of Reform Judaism) and the majority of
active and retired military commanders who have served or are serving
in Iraq.

Most of the discussion and debate in the US on Israel’s war agenda
has been dominated by the pro-Israeli organizations that transmit the
Israeli state positions. The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward , has
reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not
acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel’s policy. According to
the Forward , "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush
Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring
nuclear weapons…" (Dec. 9, 2005). Further stark differences occurred
during the semi-annual strategic dialog between Israeli and US security
officials, in which the Israelis opposed a US push for regime change in
Syria, fearing a possible, more radical Islamic regime. The Israeli
officials also criticized the US for forcing Israel to agree to open
the Rafah border crossing and upsetting their stranglehold on the
economy in Gaza.

Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO)
immediately echoed the Israeli state line as it has since its founding.
Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the CPMAJO lambasted Washington for a
"failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe"
(Forward, Dec. 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration
for not following Israel’s demands by delaying referring Iran to the
UN Security Council for sanction. The leader of the CPMAJO then turned
on French, German and British negotiators accusing them of "appeasement
and weakness", and of not having a "game plan for decisive action" –
presumably for not following Israel’s 'sanction or bomb them’ game
plan.

The role of AIPAC, the CPMAJO and other pro-Israeli organizations as
transmission belts for Israel’s bellicose war plans was evident in
their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration
agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran
would be allowed to enrich uranium under international supervision to
ensure that its enriched uranium would not be used for military
purposes. AIPAC’s rejection of negotiations and demands for an
immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it
would "facilitate Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons" – an argument
which flies in the face of all known intelligence data (including
Israel’s) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even
approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC’s unconditional and uncritical
transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the
rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy.
AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying
on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran
yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and
"pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005).

Leading US spokesmen for Israel opposed President Bush’s instructing
his Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khaklilzad, to open a dialog with
Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq. In addition, Israel’s official
'restrained’ reaction to Russia’s sale to Teheran of more than a
billion dollars worth of defensive anti-aircraft missiles, which might
protect Iran from an Israeli air strike, was predictably echoed by the
major Jewish organizations in the US. No doubt an important reason for
Israel’s setting an early deadline for its military assault on Iran
is to act before Iran establishes a new satellite surveillance system
and installs its new missile defense system.

Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions
and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its
supporters in the US for more than a decade (Jewish Times/ Jewish
Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005). The AIPAC believes the Islamic
Republic poses a grave threat to Israel’s supremacy in the Middle
East. In line with its policy of forcing a US confrontation with Iran,
AIPAC, the Israeli PACs (political action committees) and the CPMAJO
have successfully lined up a majority of Congress people to challenge
what they describe as the "appeasement" of Iran. According to the
Jewish Times (12/6/05), "If it comes down to a political battle, signs
are that AIPAC could muster strong support in Congress to press the
White House to demand sanctions on Iran." Representative Illeana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who has the dubious distinction of being a
collaborator with Cuban exile terrorist groups and unconditional backer
of Israel’s war policy, is chairwoman of the highly influential US
House of Representative Middle East subcommittee. From that platform
she has echoed the CPMAJO line about "European appeasement and arming
the terrorist regime in Teheran" (Jewish Times 12/6/05). The
Cuban-American Zionist boasted that her Iran sanctions bill has the
support of 75% of the members of Congress and that she is lining up
additional so-sponsors.

The pro-Israel lobby’s power, which includes AIPAC, the Conference of
Presidents, the PACs and hundreds of local formal and informal
organizations, is magnified by their influence and hegemony over
Congress, the mass media, financial institutions, pension funds and
fundamentalist Christian organizations. Within the executive branch
their influence in these institutions amplifies their power far beyond
their number and direct control and representation in strategic public
and private institutions (which itself is formidable). AIPAC’s
"Progress and Policy Report for 2005" – published on its website –
lists, among its accomplishments, getting Congress to approve 100
pro-Israel legislative initiatives, $3 billion in direct aid and more
than $10 billion in guaranteed loans, transfer of the most advanced
military technology to Israel’s multi-billion dollar arms export
corporations, and the lining up by a 410 to 1 vote in the House of
Representative committing the US to Israel’s security – as it is
defined by Israel.

The conflict between the Israeli elite and the Bush Administration has
to be located in a broader context. Despite pro-Israeli attacks on US
policy for its 'weakness’ on Iran, Washington has moved as
aggressively as circumstances permit. Facing European opposition to an
immediate confrontation (as AIPAC and Israeli politicians demand)
Washington supports European negotiations but imposes extremely
limiting conditions, namely a rejection of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, which allows uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. The
European "compromise" of forcing Iran to turn over the enrichment
process to a foreign country (Russia), is not only a violation of its
sovereignty, but is a policy that no other country using nuclear energy
practices. Given this transparently unacceptable "mandate", it is clear
that Washington’s 'support for negotiations’ is a propaganda devise
to provoke an Iranian rejection, and a means of securing Europe’s
support for a Security Council referral for international sanctions.
Washington has absolutely no precedent to object to Russia’s sale of
defensive ground to air missiles to Iran, since it is standard in the
arms export business. As for as the Ambassadorial meetings in Iraq, the
US has had great success in securing Iranian co-operation on
stabilizing its Iraqi Shiite client regime. Iran has recognized the
regime, has signed trade agreements, supported the dubious elections
and provided the US with intelligence against the Sunni resistance.
Given their common interests in the region, it was logical for
Washington to seek to bend Iran into further co-operation via
diplomatic discussions. In other words, as the US seeks to withdraw its
troops from a losing war in Iraq (largely supported by AIPAC and its
organizational partners), pro-Israel organizations are pushing hard to
put the US into a new war with Iran. It is no surprise that the Zionist
Organization of America (ZOA) invited the most bellicose of US Middle
East warmongers, UN Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, to
be its keynote speaker at its annual awards dinner (ZOA Press Release,
Dec. 11, 2005). The ZOA has loyally followed all the zigzags of Israeli
policy since the foundation of the State.

Despite the near unanimous support and widespread influence of the
major Jewish organizations, 20% of American Jews do not support Israel
in its conflict with the Palestinians. Even more significantly, 61% of
Jews almost never talk about Israel or defend Israel in conversation
with Goyim (non-Jews) (Jerusalem Post, Dec 1, 2005). Only 29% of Jews
are active promoters of Israel. In other words, it is important to note
that the Israel First crowd represents less than a third of the Jewish
community and hence their claim to speak for 'all’ US Jews is false
and a misrepresentation. In fact, there is more opposition to Israel
among Jews than there is in the US Congress. Having said that, however,
most Jewish critics of Israel are not influential in the big Jewish
organizations and the Israel lobby, excluded from the mass media and
mostly intimidated from speaking out, especially on Israel’s war
preparations against Iran. The minority Jewish critics cannot match the
five to eight million dollars spent in buying Congressional votes each
year by the pro-Israel lobbies.

The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat
The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has
categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat
to Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz
(12/14/05), Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to
produce a nuclear bomb – which he estimated might happen between 2008
and 2015.

Israel’s Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an
immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud
war propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party
officials…accused Preme Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul
Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their
election campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social
issues" (Dec. 14, 2005). In a message directed at the Israeli Right but
equally applicable to AIPAC and the 'Presidents of the Major Jewish
Organizations in the US, Labor member of the Knesset, Benjamin
Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the upcoming
elections won’t motivate the prime minister and defense minister to
stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines of
confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue
and there is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz,
Dec. 14, 2005). Unfortunately the Israel lobby is making it a US issue
and putting Washington on the frontlines…

Iran’s Nuclear Threat Fabrication
Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched
uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the
immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by
the US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United
Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected
Iran for several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no
proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized
Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military
solution would be completely un-productive" (Financial Times, Dec.
10/11, 2005).

More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future
use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a
nuclear power plant" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005). Iranian Foreign
Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, speaking at a press conference,
stated "America can take part in the international bidding for the
construction of Iran’s nuclear power plant if they observe the basic
standards and quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005). Iran also plans to
build several other nuclear power plants with foreign help. The Iranian
call for foreign assistance is hardly the strategy of a country trying
to conduct a covert atomic bomb program, especially one directed at
involving one of its principal accusers.

The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium,
not even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will
take still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical
problems before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for
arguing that Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US
forces in the Middle East.

Israel’s war preparations and AIPAC’s efforts to push the US in the
same direction based on falsified data is reminiscent of the fabricated
evidence which was channeled to the White House through the
Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans led by Abram Shumsky and directed
by Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, both long-time supporters of the
Likud Party. Israel’s war preparations are not over any present or
future Iranian nuclear threat. The issue is over future enrichment of
uranium, which is legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as is its
use in producing electrical power. Iran currently is only in a uranium
conversion phase, which is prior to enrichment. Scores of countries
with nuclear reactors by necessity use enriched uranium. The Iranian
decision to advance to processing enriched uranium is its sovereign
right as it is for all countries, which possess nuclear reactors in
Europe, Asia and North America.

Israel and AIPAC’s resort to the vague formulation of Iran’s
potential nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to
scores of countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.

The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the issue of
whether or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and
focused on attacking Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear energy –
namely the production of enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated
enriched uranium with a nuclear threat and nuclear potential with the
danger of an imminent nuclear attack on Western countries, troops and
Israel. The Europeans, especially Great Britain, have two options in
mind: To impose an Iranian acceptance of limits on its sovereignty,
more specifically on its energy policy and capacity to control the
deadly air pollution of its major cities with cleaner sources of
energy; or to force Iran to reject the arbitrary addendum to the
Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to propagandize the rejection as
an indication of Iran’s evil intention to create atomic bombs and
target pro-Western countries. The Western media would echo the US and
European governments position that Iran was responsible for the
breakdown of negotiations. The Europeans would then convince their
public that since "reason" failed, the only recourse it to follow the
US to take the issue to the Security Council and approve international
sanctions against Iran.

The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote in favor
of sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either or
both countries would agree giving the importance of the multi-billion
dollar oil, arms, nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two
countries. Having tried and failed in the Security Council, the US and
Israel are likely to move toward a military attack. An air attack on
suspected Iranian nuclear facilities will entail the bombing of heavily
populated as well as remote regions leading to large-scale loss of
life.

The principal result will be a massive escalation of war throughout the
Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the
military forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and
committed military and paramilitary forces can be expected to cross
into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most
likely break their ties with Washington and go into combat. US military
bases, troops and clients would be under tremendous attack. US military
casualties would multiply. All troop withdrawal plans would be
disrupted. The 'Iraqization’ strategy would disintegrate, as the US
'loyal’ Shia armed forces would turn against their American officers.
Beyond Iraq, there would likely be major military-civilian uprisings in
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Pakistan. The
conflagration would spread beyond the Middle East, as the Israel-US
attack on an Islamic country would ignite mass protests throughout
Asia. Most likely new terrorist incidents would occur in Western
Europe, North America, and Australia and against US multinationals. A
bitter prolonged war would ensue; pitting 70 million unified Iranian
nationals, millions of Muslims in Asia and Africa against an isolated
US accompanied by its European allies facing mass popular protests at
home.

Sanctions on Iran will not work, because oil is a scarce and essential
commodity. China, India and other fast-growing Asian countries will
balk at a boycott. Turkey and other Muslim countries will not
cooperate. Numerous Western oil companies will work through
intermediaries. The sanction policy is predestined to failure; its only
result will be to raise the price of oil even higher. An Israeli or US
military attack will cause severe political instability and increase
the risk to oil producers, shippers and buyers, raising the price of
oil to astronomical heights, likely over $100 a barrel, destabilizing
the world economy and provoking a major world recession or worse.

Conclusion
The only possible beneficiary of a US or Israeli military attack on
Iran or economic sanctions will be Israel: it will seem to eliminate a
military adversary in the Middle East, and consolidate its military
supremacy in the Middle East. Even this outcome is problematic because
it fails to take account of the fact that Iran’s challenge to Israel
is political, not its non-existent nuclear potential. The first target
of the millions of Muslims protesting Israeli aggression will be the
Arab regimes closest to Israel. An Israeli attack would be a pyrrhic
victory, if a predictable political conflagration unseats the rulers of
Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The consequences would be even
worse if the US attacks: major oil wells burning, US troops in Iraq
surrounded, long-term relations with Arab regimes undermined, increased
oil prices and troop casualties inflaming domestic public opinion. An
attack on Iran will not be a cleanly executed 'surgical’ strike –
it will be a deep jagged wound leading to gangrene.

No doubt AIPAC will celebrate "another success" for Israel in their
yearly self-congratulatory report of missions accomplished. The
Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America will thank
their obedient and loyal congressional followers for approving the
destruction of an 'anti-Semitic and anti-American nuclear threat to all
of humanity’ or some similar rubbish.

The big losers of a US-Israeli military attack are the US soldiers in
Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries who will be killed and maimed,
the US public which will pay in blood and bloated deficits, the oil
companies which will see their oil supplies disrupted, their new
multi-billion dollar joint oil exploitation contracts undermined, the
Palestinians who will suffer the consequences of greater repression and
massive displacement, the Lebanese people who will be forcible
entangled in a new border war, and the Europeans who will face
terrorist retaliations.

Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish
American supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish
organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or
against this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever
there is a Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a
totally bogus issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the
contrary – big oil is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset
their first major entry into Middle Eastern oil fields since they were
nationalized in the 1970’s.

The only identifiable organized political force, which has successfully
made deep inroads in the US Congress and in sectors of the Executive
Branch, are the pro-Israel lobbies and PAC’s. The major proponents of
a confrontationist policy in the Executive Branch are led by pro-Israel
neo-conservative National Security Council member (and Presidentially
pardoned felon) Elliott Abrams, in charge of Middle East policy, and
Vice President Cheney. The principle opposition is found in the major
military services, among commanders, who clearly see the disastrous
strategic consequences for the US military forces and sectors of the
State Department and CIA, who are certainly aware of the disastrous
consequences for the US of supporting Israel’s quest for uncontested
regional supremacy.

The problem is there is no political leadership to oppose the
pro-Israel war lobby within congress or even in civil society. There
are few if any influential organized lobbies challenging the pro-war
Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for coexistence in
the Middle East or even in defending US national interests when they
diverge from Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals,
intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security
advisers and State Department professionals have publicly denounced the
Iran war agenda and even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their
newspaper ads and media interviews have not been backed by any national
political organization that can compete for influence in the White
House and Congress. As we draw closer to a major confrontation with
Iran and Israeli officials set short term deadlines for igniting a
Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from
future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat
political lobbies based on overseas allegiances.






:: Article nr. 19081 sent on 29-dec-2005 07:09 ECT


:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=19081

:: The incoming address of this article is :

peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/12/james-petras-israels-war-with-iran.html

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

=================================
kmiller
2006-01-05 09:01:13 UTC
Permalink
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).

Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???

:-(]
E***@hotmail.com
2006-01-06 05:00:50 UTC
Permalink
"THEE" *ELECT* "ONE" *WROTE*:

*WHEN* "I" *LOOK* "AT" *THE* "RECENT" *HISTORY* "OF" *WARS* "I" *SEE*
"THE" *UNITED* "STATES" *BEING* "RIGHT" *IN* "THE" *MIDDLE* "OF" *THEM*
"BY" *EITHER* "BEING" *MILITARILY* "INVOLVED" *OR* "POLITICALLY"
*INVOLVED* "AND" *THIS* "IS" *BECAUSE* "OF" *THE* "ALLIED" *INTEREST*
"IN" *PROTECTING* "EACH" *OTHERS* "SOVEREIGNTY" *AND* "VESTED"
*INTERESTS*!!!

*PEOPLE* "DO" *NOT* "SEE" *THIS* "STRATEGIC" *ALLIANCE* "FOR" *WHAT*
"IT" *TRULY* "IS" *AND* "IT" *IS* "UNDERMINING" *THE* "PEOPLES"
*ABILITY* "TO" *IMPROVE* "THE" *RELATIONAL* "QUALITIES" *OF* "THEIR"
*LIVES*!!! "TOO" *MANY* "PEOPLE" *PROMOTING* "THE" *WRONG* "VALUES"
*BECOMES" *A* "HINDERANCE" *TOWARDS* "AN" *UNSTABLE* "AND"
*UNSUSTAINABLE* "LIFE" *FOR* "THE" *REST* "OF" *THE* "PEOPLE"!!!

*WITH* "PEOPLE" *BEING* "ALL" *TOO* "WILLING" *TO* "GO" *TO* "WAR"
*WITH* "EACH" *OTHER* "THE" *RISKS* "ARE" *INCREASED* "EXPONENTIALLY"
*FOR* "THE" *OVERALL* "QUALITY" *OF* "LIFE" *TO* "EXPERIENCE" *A*
"CATACLYSMIC" *AND* "UNIMAGINABLE" *EVENT* "THAT" *WILL* "LEAVE" *A*
"PROFOUND" *SCAR* "ON" *LIFE* "AND" *ON* "THE" *CONSCIOUS* "INTELLECTS"
*OF* "MANY" *PEOPLE* "FOR" *MANY* "GENERATIONS" *TO* "COME"!!!

*MEMORIES* "ARE" *OUR* "RELATIONAL" *THOUGHTS* "IN" *DIRECT*
"RELATIONSHIP" *TO* "EACH" *OTHER* "AND" *WITH* "TOO" *MANY* "BAD"
*MEMORIES* "BEING" *CREATED* "THE" *OVERALL* "QUALITY" *OF* "LIFE" *IS*
"SUFFERING" *AND* "THIS" *MAKES* "THE" *WHOLE* "SITUATION" *A* "MATTER"
*FOR* "WHICH" *GOD* "MAKES" *CORRECTIONS* "FOR" *AND* "WE" *AS* "A"
*PEOPLE* "BECOME" *AFFECTED* "BY"!!!

*WHAT* "NEEDS" *TO* "BE" *DONE* "IS" *FOR* "THE" *PEOPLE* "TO" *STOP*
"SPREADING" *THESE* "NEGATIVE" *QUALITIES* "IN" *LIFE* "THAT" *THEY*
"ARE" *ALWAYS* "WILLING" *TO* "USE" *IN* "RELATIONSHIP" *TO* "EACH"
*OTHER* "AND" *START* "USING" *THE* "POSITIVE" *QUALITIES* "THAT"
*WILL* "HELP" *PROMOTE* "HEALING" *AND* "HOPE" *TOWARDS* "A" *BETTER*
"TOMORROW" *FOR* "THE" *SAKE* "OF" *ALL* "THIS" *LIFE*!!!

*WHETHER* "THE" *AGREEMENT* "WILL" *COME* "IN" *THE* "WILLINGNESS" *OF*
"THE" *PEOPLE* "OR" *NOT* "IT" *IS* "GIVEN" *THAT* "THIS" *PATH* "DOES"
*LEAD* "THE" *PEOPLE* "AWAY" *FROM* "DESTROYING" *MORE* "OUT" *OF*
"THIS" *LIFE* "AND" *RESTORE* "MORE" *BACK* "THAT" *IS* "ESSENTIAL"
*IN* "KEEPING" *A* "BALANCED" *AND* "RESPECTABLE" *LIFE* "FOR" *ALL*
"TO" *SHARE* "IN" *AND* "EXPERIENCE" *TOGETHER*!!!


*A* "POSITIVE" *CHANGE* "IS" *THE* "DIRECTION" *THE* "PEOPLE" *NEED*
"TO" *PURSUE* "IN" *RELATIONSHIP* "WITH" *EACH* "OTHER"!!!

"THEE" *ELECT* "ONE"
Doc
2006-01-09 05:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@hotmail.com
*WHEN* "I" *LOOK* "AT" *THE* "RECENT" *HISTORY* "OF" *WARS* "I" *SEE*
"THE" *UNITED* "STATES" *BEING* "RIGHT" *IN* "THE" *MIDDLE* "OF" *THEM*
"BY" *EITHER* "BEING" *MILITARILY* "INVOLVED" *OR* "POLITICALLY"
*INVOLVED* "AND" *THIS* "IS" *BECAUSE* "OF" *THE* "ALLIED" *INTEREST*
"IN" *PROTECTING* "EACH" *OTHERS* "SOVEREIGNTY" *AND* "VESTED"
*INTERESTS*!!!
*PEOPLE* "DO" *NOT* "SEE" *THIS* "STRATEGIC" *ALLIANCE* "FOR" *WHAT*
"IT" *TRULY* "IS" *AND* "IT" *IS* "UNDERMINING" *THE* "PEOPLES"
*ABILITY* "TO" *IMPROVE* "THE" *RELATIONAL* "QUALITIES" *OF* "THEIR"
*LIVES*!!! "TOO" *MANY* "PEOPLE" *PROMOTING* "THE" *WRONG* "VALUES"
*BECOMES" *A* "HINDERANCE" *TOWARDS* "AN" *UNSTABLE* "AND"
*UNSUSTAINABLE* "LIFE" *FOR* "THE" *REST* "OF" *THE* "PEOPLE"!!!
*WITH* "PEOPLE" *BEING* "ALL" *TOO* "WILLING" *TO* "GO" *TO* "WAR"
*WITH* "EACH" *OTHER* "THE" *RISKS* "ARE" *INCREASED* "EXPONENTIALLY"
*FOR* "THE" *OVERALL* "QUALITY" *OF* "LIFE" *TO* "EXPERIENCE" *A*
"CATACLYSMIC" *AND* "UNIMAGINABLE" *EVENT* "THAT" *WILL* "LEAVE" *A*
"PROFOUND" *SCAR* "ON" *LIFE* "AND" *ON* "THE" *CONSCIOUS* "INTELLECTS"
*OF* "MANY" *PEOPLE* "FOR" *MANY* "GENERATIONS" *TO* "COME"!!!
*MEMORIES* "ARE" *OUR* "RELATIONAL" *THOUGHTS* "IN" *DIRECT*
"RELATIONSHIP" *TO* "EACH" *OTHER* "AND" *WITH* "TOO" *MANY* "BAD"
*MEMORIES* "BEING" *CREATED* "THE" *OVERALL* "QUALITY" *OF* "LIFE" *IS*
"SUFFERING" *AND* "THIS" *MAKES* "THE" *WHOLE* "SITUATION" *A* "MATTER"
*FOR* "WHICH" *GOD* "MAKES" *CORRECTIONS* "FOR" *AND* "WE" *AS* "A"
*PEOPLE* "BECOME" *AFFECTED* "BY"!!!
*WHAT* "NEEDS" *TO* "BE" *DONE* "IS" *FOR* "THE" *PEOPLE* "TO" *STOP*
"SPREADING" *THESE* "NEGATIVE" *QUALITIES* "IN" *LIFE* "THAT" *THEY*
"ARE" *ALWAYS* "WILLING" *TO* "USE" *IN* "RELATIONSHIP" *TO* "EACH"
*OTHER* "AND" *START* "USING" *THE* "POSITIVE" *QUALITIES* "THAT"
*WILL* "HELP" *PROMOTE* "HEALING" *AND* "HOPE" *TOWARDS* "A" *BETTER*
"TOMORROW" *FOR* "THE" *SAKE* "OF" *ALL* "THIS" *LIFE*!!!
*WHETHER* "THE" *AGREEMENT* "WILL" *COME* "IN" *THE* "WILLINGNESS" *OF*
"THE" *PEOPLE* "OR" *NOT* "IT" *IS* "GIVEN" *THAT* "THIS" *PATH* "DOES"
*LEAD* "THE" *PEOPLE* "AWAY" *FROM* "DESTROYING" *MORE* "OUT" *OF*
"THIS" *LIFE* "AND" *RESTORE* "MORE" *BACK* "THAT" *IS* "ESSENTIAL"
*IN* "KEEPING" *A* "BALANCED" *AND* "RESPECTABLE" *LIFE* "FOR" *ALL*
"TO" *SHARE* "IN" *AND* "EXPERIENCE" *TOGETHER*!!!
*A* "POSITIVE" *CHANGE* "IS" *THE* "DIRECTION" *THE* "PEOPLE" *NEED*
"TO" *PURSUE* "IN" *RELATIONSHIP* "WITH" *EACH* "OTHER"!!!
"THEE" *ELECT* "ONE"
That soapy sermon made me cry a river of tears.
Doc :))
Brokeback Mountaineer #522
2006-01-10 02:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
That soapy sermon made me cry a river of tears.
Doc :)
You think U got it bad??
It gave me one heck of a hardon! (grin)
z***@home.ca
2006-01-07 13:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
Because it's the Americunts that are trying to take over the world and
usher in their NWO
WH
2006-01-10 14:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...in fact if
there's a global conflict you can bet your arse that the yanks will be
the cause of it. With the monkey at the helm...the BTY's can get up to
any kind of mischief...GAWD BLESS THE USSA!!

WH
Steven Douglas
2006-01-10 17:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by WH
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...
Yes, it IS hard to imagine a global conflict without us being involved.
The global conflicts of the 20th century started in Europe, and I don't
even want to imagine what the world would be like today if we had not
become involved.
Post by WH
in fact if there's a global conflict you can bet your arse that the
yanks will be the cause of it.
Let's see ... Bismarck, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Wilhelm, Hitler,
Mussolini, Milosevic ... that's an excellent track record you've got
over there on your side of the pond.
b***@hotmail.com
2006-01-11 16:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...
Yes, it IS hard to imagine a global conflict without us being involved.
The global conflicts of the 20th century started in Europe, and I don't
even want to imagine what the world would be like today if we had not
become involved.
That makes a change. Your imagination runs wild when it concerns Islam
and it's followers...now you don't even want to imagine.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
in fact if there's a global conflict you can bet your arse that the
yanks will be the cause of it.
Let's see ... Bismarck, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Wilhelm, Hitler,
Mussolini, Milosevic ... that's an excellent track record you've got
over there on your side of the pond.
The only one of the above that has any relevance to what I said is
Hitler. The yanks have had a hand in the majority of modern conflicts
(post WWII) around the world either by interfering in the internal
affairs of other countries or by attacking other countries.

WH
Steven Douglas
2006-01-12 03:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...
Yes, it IS hard to imagine a global conflict without us being involved.
The global conflicts of the 20th century started in Europe, and I don't
even want to imagine what the world would be like today if we had not
become involved.
That makes a change. Your imagination runs wild when it concerns Islam
and it's followers...now you don't even want to imagine.
I don't want to imagine what the world would be like today if Hitler
and his sidekick, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, had won World War II.
And if Hitler and the Mufti had won WWII, and kept their mutual pact to
go finish the Holocaust they started, they'd have performed a genocide
on the Jews in Palestine. Of course many of you think that would have
been a good thing. Why don't all of you stand up and be counted?
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
in fact if there's a global conflict you can bet your arse that the
yanks will be the cause of it.
Let's see ... Bismarck, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Wilhelm, Hitler,
Mussolini, Milosevic ... that's an excellent track record you've got
over there on your side of the pond.
The only one of the above that has any relevance to what I said is
Hitler.
That covers World War II. Did you forget about World War I?
Post by b***@hotmail.com
The yanks have had a hand in the majority of modern conflicts
(post WWII) around the world either by interfering in the internal
affairs of other countries or by attacking other countries.
The French-Algerian War? Ethiopia? Rwanda? Sudan? Just for example.
Literally millions of people have been slaughtered in those conflicts,
all since WWII. Please explain what hand the US had in those conflicts.
fasgnadh
2006-01-12 06:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...
Yes, it IS hard to imagine a global conflict without us being involved.
The global conflicts of the 20th century started in Europe, and I don't
even want to imagine what the world would be like today if we had not
become involved.
Historian Gore Vidal has observed that America is frequently
given kudos for it's role in helping end the Second world war.
Even allowing for Hollywoods exaggerations, and the tendency to
overlook the role of the USSR in defeating Nazis, the Americans
were vital to the Allied effort.


But he goes further to note that while the American intervention
in WWII was a global positive, it only became necessary
because of American intervention in WWI, where it provided the
crushing defeat of one side which led to the ill advised treaty
of Versailles, humiliating the Germans and laying the foundations for
the rise of Nazism. He argues that without American intervention
Europe would have come to an exhausted peace, rather than crippling
sanctions from a crushing victory. It's a thought provoking point.

Vidal, one of the last of the American isolationists, argues that
every American intervention has ended up making things worse
that allowing the forces involved come to a balanced settlement.

Vietnam and Iraq certainly make his case for him.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
in fact if there's a global conflict you can bet your arse that the
yanks will be the cause of it.
Let's see ... Bismarck, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Wilhelm, Hitler,
Mussolini, Milosevic ... that's an excellent track record you've got
over there on your side of the pond.
--
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"History shows us that there have been many
struggles between the honest men of England and
those that tyrannized them.
All good laws come as innovation and as constraints upon
the power of the King and Lords."

-Colonel Thomas Rainsborough
Council of the Army, Putney Church, 1647

"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties."

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
Steven Douglas
2006-01-12 15:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...
Yes, it IS hard to imagine a global conflict without us being involved.
The global conflicts of the 20th century started in Europe, and I don't
even want to imagine what the world would be like today if we had not
become involved.
Historian Gore Vidal has observed that America is frequently
given kudos for it's role in helping end the Second world war.
Even allowing for Hollywoods exaggerations, and the tendency to
overlook the role of the USSR in defeating Nazis, the Americans
were vital to the Allied effort.
Prior to the USSR's role in defeating Nazis, Stalin had a nonaggression
pact with Hitler. It was only after Hitler attacked the USSR that the
USSR joined the allied effort to defeat Nazis. And once they joined,
they played a vital role. Thank God Hitler was such a moron, and
attacked the USSR when he did.
Post by fasgnadh
But he goes further to note that while the American intervention
in WWII was a global positive, it only became necessary
because of American intervention in WWI, where it provided the
crushing defeat of one side which led to the ill advised treaty
of Versailles, humiliating the Germans and laying the foundations for
the rise of Nazism. He argues that without American intervention
Europe would have come to an exhausted peace, rather than crippling
sanctions from a crushing victory. It's a thought provoking point.
The US tried to stay out of that war. But when Germany started
attacking our shipping with U-boats, that changed things. As for the
Versailles Treaty, President Wilson wanted to go easier on Germany than
the victorious European powers did. If there is blame for the effects
of the Versailles Treaty, it belongs with the victorious European
powers.
Post by fasgnadh
Vidal, one of the last of the American isolationists, argues that
every American intervention has ended up making things worse
that allowing the forces involved come to a balanced settlement.
Sure, just let evil forces of the world run rampant, and hope they
don't attack us. Except Germany WAS attacking our shipping BEFORE our
involvement in World War I. They were hoping to intimidate us to keep
us from getting involved, but it backfired on them.
Post by fasgnadh
Vietnam and Iraq certainly make his case for him.
No they don't. Fighting the Communists in Korea and Vietnam was a noble
effort. Do you know any of the Vietnamese refugees who now live in the
United States? Ask them how they feel about Communism. Then ask them
how they feel about freedom. Unlike many Americans, people who have
actually lived under tyrrany do not take their freedom for granted.
Freedom is too precious to take for granted, but far too many people
who were born into freedom take it for granted.
As for Iraq, the final chapter has yet to be written. But the people of
Iraq have now voted in democratic elections. They have a chance to live
in real freedom for the first time. There is an insurgency of
approximately 10,000, while the vast majority of the 27 million people
of Iraq want to live in peace and freedom. Freedom.
Doc
2006-01-14 02:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Sure, just let evil forces of the world run rampant, and hope they
don't attack us. Except Germany WAS attacking our shipping BEFORE our
involvement in World War I. They were hoping to intimidate us to keep
us from getting involved, but it backfired on them.
Jezuz, Stevie, that last sentence was a wondrous expression of twisted
thinking.
heeheehee...you dope...
Doc :))
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by kmiller
By what "Prophecy" do you see any involvement between the United
States and Israel vs. Iran
(or possibly Syria).
Why does everyone 'assume' any Global Conflict has to include the United States ???
:-(]
'Cos the yanks are generally the one's who cause conflicts so it's hard
to imagine a global conflict without them being involved...
Yes, it IS hard to imagine a global conflict without us being involved.
The global conflicts of the 20th century started in Europe, and I don't
even want to imagine what the world would be like today if we had not
become involved.
Historian Gore Vidal has observed that America is frequently
given kudos for it's role in helping end the Second world war.
Even allowing for Hollywoods exaggerations, and the tendency to
overlook the role of the USSR in defeating Nazis, the Americans
were vital to the Allied effort.
Prior to the USSR's role in defeating Nazis, Stalin had a nonaggression
pact with Hitler. It was only after Hitler attacked the USSR that the
USSR joined the allied effort to defeat Nazis. And once they joined,
they played a vital role. Thank God Hitler was such a moron, and
attacked the USSR when he did.
Post by fasgnadh
But he goes further to note that while the American intervention
in WWII was a global positive, it only became necessary
because of American intervention in WWI, where it provided the
crushing defeat of one side which led to the ill advised treaty
of Versailles, humiliating the Germans and laying the foundations for
the rise of Nazism. He argues that without American intervention
Europe would have come to an exhausted peace, rather than crippling
sanctions from a crushing victory. It's a thought provoking point.
The US tried to stay out of that war. But when Germany started
attacking our shipping with U-boats, that changed things. As for the
Versailles Treaty, President Wilson wanted to go easier on Germany than
the victorious European powers did. If there is blame for the effects
of the Versailles Treaty, it belongs with the victorious European
powers.
Post by fasgnadh
Vidal, one of the last of the American isolationists, argues that
every American intervention has ended up making things worse
that allowing the forces involved come to a balanced settlement.
Sure, just let evil forces of the world run rampant, and hope they
don't attack us. Except Germany WAS attacking our shipping BEFORE our
involvement in World War I. They were hoping to intimidate us to keep
us from getting involved, but it backfired on them.
Post by fasgnadh
Vietnam and Iraq certainly make his case for him.
No they don't. Fighting the Communists in Korea and Vietnam was a noble
effort. Do you know any of the Vietnamese refugees who now live in the
United States? Ask them how they feel about Communism. Then ask them
how they feel about freedom. Unlike many Americans, people who have
actually lived under tyrrany do not take their freedom for granted.
Freedom is too precious to take for granted, but far too many people
who were born into freedom take it for granted.
As for Iraq, the final chapter has yet to be written. But the people of
Iraq have now voted in democratic elections. They have a chance to live
in real freedom for the first time. There is an insurgency of
approximately 10,000, while the vast majority of the 27 million people
of Iraq want to live in peace and freedom. Freedom.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...