IS Bush going attack Iran?

[Catchme]

Former CIA counterterrorism specialist Philip Giraldi, comparing the propaganda campaign against Iran to that which preceded the war on Iraq, has recently declared, "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps-demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux.

the American Israel Political Action Committee is the main political force urging---indeed, demanding---U.S. action. That's the AIPAC already under scrutiny for receiving classified information about Iran from Lawrence Franklin, former Defense Department subordinate of Douglas Feith. (That's the neocon Feith who supervised the Office of Special Plans---headed by Abram Shulsky, the neocon specialist on Leo Strauss who currently heads up the Iran Directorate at the Pentagon---that shamelessly cherry-picked intelligence to support the Iraq attack. That's the Franklin who worked in the OSP, and was sentenced last month to 13 years in prison. Feith has not been indicted on any charge and continues to insist in defiance of reason and even a Pentagon internal investigation finding it "inappropriate" that his office's disinformation project was "good government." Small wonder Gen. Tommy Franks, formerly head of the U.S. Central Command, famously called Feith "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." Congressional investigations are just now getting underway into Feith's role in facilitating the invasion of Iraq.)

That's the AIPAC embarrassed by the indictment of its policy director Steven Rosen and senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman for illegally conspiring to pass on classified national security information to Israel. Despite the already intimate ties between Israeli and U.S. intelligence (documented by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski among others) it seems the Israelis felt obliged to spy on the Pentagon to learn just how inclined the Americans were to oblige them by attacking Iran.

Now, as Israeli calls for a U.S. attack on Iran become more shrill by the day, AIPAC recognizes that the American people profoundly distrust Vice President Cheney and the nest of neocon liars he has sheltered. The Bush-Cheney war machine has been pretty well exposed, and that must worry the warmongers within the group.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02242007.html

[Borg]

I believe yes, he going to try and the Congress probably won't be behind him. I've heard different radio talk host believe it will be within two months and he will use the Air Force to pepper the country with bombs. How many innnocnet people are going to be killed like in Iraq! Bush must be desperate to show he is right but he could end up impeached!!

Well, someone will. And I suspect it will happen soon.

Either way there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Lots of folks will die.

And if he does not the some other country will do this.

Many are afraid of what MIGHT happen.

Actually I do not blame them even though I fully believe as a country, Iran has the right to self determination - the right to tell the world to frig off - and the right to suffer the consequences.

No matter who hits Iran the public will scream blue murder - but quietly and behind the scenes I believe there will also be support for this action.

Grab the popcorn and beer - grab a good seat - because when this goes down I believe it could get downright nasty.

Borg

[B. Max]

I believe yes, he going to try and the Congress probably won't be behind him. I've heard different radio talk host believe it will be within two months and he will use the Air Force to pepper the country with bombs. How many innnocnet people are going to be killed like in Iraq! Bush must be desperate to show he is right but he could end up impeached!!

I thought air america went belly up.

[EchoesofMourning]

Of course Bush will attack Iran. The United States is an empire (not physical, like Rome, but economic), and the only way for an empire to survive is to continue to expand. When this growing empire encounters something that doesn't want to go along, the empire's only choice is to destroy it.

This conflict in the Middle East has been fought before, but it hasn't been pursued to this level before. It will play out, and my prediction is that it will get bigger. Sooner or later another country, probably China, is going to step in and stop the big bad states from throwing its weight around - and mark my words, that's when the blood is really going to start to flow.

[sunsettommy]

Of course Bush will attack Iran. The United States is an empire (not physical, like Rome, but economic), and the only way for an empire to survive is to continue to expand. When this growing empire encounters something that doesn't want to go along, the empire's only choice is to destroy it.

This conflict in the Middle East has been fought before, but it hasn't been pursued to this level before. It will play out, and my prediction is that it will get bigger. Sooner or later another country, probably China, is going to step in and stop the big bad states from throwing its weight around - and mark my words, that's when the blood is really going to start to flow.

HUH?

I thought the possible attack was for stopping the Iranian nuclear bomb production.

Bombing Iran serves Americas economic needs?

Please explain this claim.

[Figleaf]

Leafless

And you are the head honcho left wing, anti-American, anti-Western, mouthy pro- Islamic propagandist, made possible by charter rights and freedoms.

And if you take away anyones right to do just that, then you become the oppressor, and you become what you hate the most.

Oh. Come now! You don't think Argus hates oppression, do you??? Really, it depends on who is doing and who is being.

[Leafless]

Leafless

And you are the head honcho left wing, anti-American, anti-Western, mouthy pro- Islamic propagandist, made possible by charter rights and freedoms.

And if you take away anyones right to do just that, then you become the oppressor, and you become what you hate the most.

Oh. Come now! You don't think Argus hates oppression, do you??? Really, it depends on who is doing and who is being.

This could be true, especially considering what a perceived right might consist of in relation to the functioning and security of the present world order.

[jbg]

Oh. Come now! You don't think Argus hates oppression, do you??? Really, it depends on who is doing and who is being.

Argus is Zionist, imperialist, apartheidist, running dog Bush Lover. He should be re-educated.

[EchoesofMourning]

HUH?

I thought the possible attack was for stopping the Iranian nuclear bomb production.

Bombing Iran serves Americas economic needs?

Please explain this claim.

All of the talk about 'nuclear bomb production' and all that sort of stuff is just a sleight of hand. If everyone is looking at anything that *could* be a nuclear facility (The quality of United States intelligence data...), they won't look any further into other motivations. Think about it - attacking a country because they have an assault weapon - not only is it awfully presumptious, it's asking for trouble. No, Weapons of Mass Destruction is that phrase that everyone loves to hate - it gets the blood boiling while corporations rub their greedy little hands together.

The United States is an economic giant, but it is on the decline - it does not posess the resources to sustain itself, and it is expensive to constantly import them at prices set by another country. What, may I ask, are Iran's chief exports?

[Figleaf]

Oh. Come now! You don't think Argus hates oppression, do you??? Really, it depends on who is doing and who is being.

Argus is Zionist, imperialist, apartheidist, running dog Bush Lover. He should be re-educated.

I think there's a necessary step before he can be re-educated.

[jbg]

Oh. Come now! You don't think Argus hates oppression, do you??? Really, it depends on who is doing and who is being.

Argus is Zionist, imperialist, apartheidist, running dog Bush Lover. He should be re-educated.

I think there's a necessary step before he can be re-educated.

As a Marxist, that's what we call it.

[sunsettommy]

HUH?

I thought the possible attack was for stopping the Iranian nuclear bomb production.

Bombing Iran serves Americas economic needs?

Please explain this claim.

All of the talk about 'nuclear bomb production' and all that sort of stuff is just a sleight of hand. If everyone is looking at anything that *could* be a nuclear facility (The quality of United States intelligence data...), they won't look any further into other motivations. Think about it - attacking a country because they have an assault weapon - not only is it awfully presumptious, it's asking for trouble. No, Weapons of Mass Destruction is that phrase that everyone loves to hate - it gets the blood boiling while corporations rub their greedy little hands together.

The United States is an economic giant, but it is on the decline - it does not posess the resources to sustain itself, and it is expensive to constantly import them at prices set by another country. What, may I ask, are Iran's chief exports?

LOL,

Thanks for your NON answer.

My question was:

Bombing Iran serves Americas economic needs?

Please explain this claim.

You did not explain your claim.

Here is a link to educate you.Note that America has negligible participation with Iran's exports.

SNIP:

Exports: $63.18 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - commodities: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, carpets

Exports - partners: Japan 16.9%, China 11.2%, Italy 6%, South Korea 5.8%, Turkey 5.7%, Netherlands 4.6%, France 4.4%, South Africa 4.1%, Taiwan 4.1% (2005)

Imports: $45.48 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Imports - commodities: industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies

Imports - partners: Germany 13.9%, UAE 8.4%, China 8.3%, Italy 7.1%, France 6.3%, South Korea 5.4%, Russia 4.9% (2005)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ir.html

[Drea]

Iran could easily become the muslim powerhouse of the region.

The "last" muslim stronghold in an increasingly "western friendly" (read western installed govt's) area.

The US and its allies cannot afford for this to happen. What if all the middle east countries got together and refused to sell oil to the states for instance? We cannot take that chance as we are much to dependent on middle east oil.

It's not about nuclear weapons at all.

If nuclear weapons were indeed the focus, Iran would hardly be a blip on the radar screen in comparison to North Korea or Pakistan (who both have confirmed nukes, btw).

[jdobbin]

In the last couple of hours things have cooled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17598886/

Updated: 2 hours, 42 minutes ago

CAIRO, Egypt - The confrontation between the United States and Iran is cooling and entering a new diplomatic phase, lessening the chances of a military conflict even as sharp rhetorical attacks persist.

The shift, building for weeks, came to a head with the weekend meeting in Baghdad between Iranian and American diplomats and has been pushed along by a new hardline stance from Russia toward Iran.

“There’s an increasing American willingness to try to ’manage’ the Iranian problem, rather than try to ’solve’ it,” Jon Alterman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Tuesday. “That’s making a difference.”

Bush is quickly losing control over foreign policy decisions in the U.S.

[sunsettommy]

Iran could easily become the muslim powerhouse of the region.

The "last" muslim stronghold in an increasingly "western friendly" (read western installed govt's) area.

The US and its allies cannot afford for this to happen. What if all the middle east countries got together and refused to sell oil to the states for instance? We cannot take that chance as we are much to dependent on middle east oil.

It's not about nuclear weapons at all.

If nuclear weapons were indeed the focus, Iran would hardly be a blip on the radar screen in comparison to North Korea or Pakistan (who both have confirmed nukes, btw).

The problem is that they have no legal standing to attack Iran.

[Drea]

Just as they had no legal standing to attack Iraq.

[sunsettommy]

Just as they had no legal standing to attack Iraq.

Actually they did.

Sorry.

[Figleaf]

Just as they had no legal standing to attack Iraq.

Actually they did.

Sorry.

What did they have in that regard?

[jbg]

Increasingly "western friendly" (read western installed govt's) area.

The US and its allies cannot afford for this to happen. What if all the middle east countries got together and refused to sell oil to the states for instance? We cannot take that chance as we are much to dependent on middle east oil.

It's not about nuclear weapons at all.

If nuclear weapons were indeed the focus, Iran would hardly be a blip on the radar screen in comparison to North Korea or Pakistan (who both have confirmed nukes, btw).

1. Oil is a fungible commodity. If they "refused" to sell to the States they'd sell to other countries, and oil bound for those countries would go to the states. The selling countries would net slightly lower selling prices and the importing countries would pay slightly higher prices, as more money would be wasted on shipping. Otherwise, in the absence of price controls, which caused the 1973-4 and spring 1979 shortages in the US, all markets would be amply supplied;and
   
2. We cannot afford to have nuclear weapons or other significantly destructive weapons in the hands of unstable countries or countries led by leaders of dubfious stability.
   

[Drea]

jbg, if its about nuclear weapons why are *we* not on North Korea like white on rice -- or Pakistan... These countries do have nukes and their leaders are nuts enough to use them.

N. Korea doesn't have anything that we want, nor does Pakistan.

You've swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker!

Iran has the capability of uniting muslims in the middle east and *we* can't have that now can we?

[Black Dog]

We cannot afford to have nuclear weapons or other significantly destructive weapons in the hands of unstable countries or countries led by leaders of dubfious stability.

Well, then you must be pleased with the apparent willingness on the part of the U.S. to engage Iran diplomatically.

[ft.niagara]

We cannot afford to have nuclear weapons or other significantl destructive weapons in the hands of unstable countries or countries led by leaders of dubfious stability.

The US can not afford to stop them. The only way to stop them is to take their country over. That is too expensive. If they were to deliver one of their weapons here, we could and should destroy their country, with no rebuilding. That is what worked during the cold war, and that is what should be practiced now. JBG has mixed alliegances, one to the US and the other to Israel (because he is Jewish). His Jewish side says US, bomb and destroy Iran. The US side is probably saying stop your war mongering USA.

[jbg]

jbg, if its about nuclear weapons why are *we* not on North Korea like white on rice -- or Pakistan... These countries do have nukes and their leaders are nuts enough to use them.

N. Korea doesn't have anything that we want, nor does Pakistan.

You've swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker!

Iran has the capability of uniting muslims in the middle east and *we* can't have that now can we?

It boils down to the fact that NK and Pakistan have neighbors that would give the US unfettered cooperation and access if we needed to invade and/or attack from the air. Japan and India come to mind. Iran's in much greater geographical position to make mischief. Ditto Saddam's Iraq.

[ft.niagara]

Iran's in much greater geographical position to make mischief. Ditto Saddam's Iraq.

That is a good reason to go to war.

[jbg]

Iran's in much greater geographical position to make mischief. Ditto Saddam's Iraq.

That is a good reason to go to war.

It's sure not the same kind of mischief my 11 year old makes when he dumps snow or ice down my back.