Want War With Iran?

apotropoxy · #1 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 02:23 PM

The "evidence" Gates is touting may just be enough to initiate phase three of Bush the Lame's Fiasco. Lets' review:

1. Current CENTCOM chief is a Naval admiral with decades of aircraft carrier expertise.
2. Second aircraft carrier battle group has just arrived in the war zone
3. Anti-aircraft missile batteries have been sent to Iraq
4. USA kidnaps Iranian diplomats in Kurd area who were on invited mission
5. Foreign press float story that Israel is planning a nuclear bunker-buster attack on Iran
6. Here's what an unnamed White House operative told Ron Suskind after the reporter had written something that rankled His Lameness: [quotes in red]

Quote:

He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600en=890a96189e162076ei=509 0

Fans of modern political philosophy will recognize the influence of Leo Strauss in this meta-Machiavellian moment.
Below could be the Casus Bellum for the expanding war...

Quote:

Gates: Bombs tie Iran to Iraq extremists
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago
MUNICH, Germany - Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration's first public assertions on evidence the military has collected.
While the Bush administration and military officials have repeatedly said Iranians have been tied to terrorist bombings in
Iraq, they have said little about evidence to bolster such claims, including any documents and other items collected in recent raids in Iraq [...]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates_17

Remember:
You go to war with the leaders you have, not the leaders you'd like to have.

sputterman · #2 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

The "evidence" Gates is touting may just be enough to initiate phase three of Bush the Lame's Fiasco. Lets' review:

1. Current CENTCOM chief is a Naval admiral with decades of aircraft carrier expertise.
2. Second aircraft carrier battle group has just arrived in the war zone
3. Anti-aircraft missile batteries have been sent to Iraq
4. USA kidnaps Iranian diplomats in Kurd area who were on invited mission
5. Foreign press float story that Israel is planning a nuclear bunker-buster attack on Iran
6. Here's what an unnamed White House operative told Ron Suskind after the reporter had written something that rankled His Lameness: [quotes in red]

Quote:

He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600en=890a96189e162076ei=509 0

Fans of modern political philosophy will recognize the influence of Leo Strauss in this meta-Machiavellian moment.
Below could be the Casus Bellum for the expanding war...

Quote:

Gates: Bombs tie Iran to Iraq extremists
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago
MUNICH, Germany - Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration's first public assertions on evidence the military has collected.
While the Bush administration and military officials have repeatedly said Iranians have been tied to terrorist bombings in
Iraq, they have said little about evidence to bolster such claims, including any documents and other items collected in recent raids in Iraq [...]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates_17

Remember:
You go to war with the leaders you have, not the leaders you'd like to have.

Oh wait, maybe not. From Gates: "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found, that point to Iran". And that's "pretty good" evidence. My god! This is our Secretary of Defense? He thinks there may be some evidence? He is making a case against Iran and he 'thinks' there may be some evidence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17064803/

DuH2 · #3 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Typical Sputterman..

Quote:

Speaking with reporters in Seville, Spain, on Friday before traveling to Munich, Gates told reporters that markings on explosives provide “pretty good” evidence that Iranians are supplying either weapons or technology for Iraqi extremists.

“I think there’s some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found” that point to Iran, he said.

Even MSNBC had the decency to put a context of what he said ..how about you do the same?

Have to have your head so far up your ass that you're licking your colon not to know Iran is helping Terrorist kill people in Iraq.

Irans a terrorist state so its a given you two especially will rush out to make excuses for it.
SO much for that "REAL ENEMY" BS.

goldendog · #4 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 09:08 PM

Maybe they're waiting for Osama or his right hand man to step forward and officially claim responsibility. Osama is kicking back somewhere and laughing his a** off and our buffoon president and the people that voted for him. Serial numbers on weapons LOL our government couldn't even keep track of the serial numbers our own missing weapons, Or the serial numbers of the hundreds of tons of One hundred dollar bills that are unaccounted for in Iraq. Or the social security numbers of dead veterans that they sent recall letters to serve in Iraq after they had already given their lives for their country. You are saying that they can keep track of Iranian serial numbers but all of the other important serial numbers were on the bottom of the BS list therefore the Bush administration can just forget and lose track of them.
If the Iranians were indeed providing weapons and personnel in Iraq doesn't the US have a adequate intelligence service to declare this as fact with solid proof? There is no solid proof. Bush just has to keep throwing crap against the wall in hopes that something sticks just like he did for his solid justifications for the Iraq war.

justabubba · #5 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 04:20 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON - For 18 months now, the George W. Bush administration has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms.

But in the past, high administration officials have always admitted that they have no real evidence to support it. Now, they are going further. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on her current Middle Eastern trip, "I think there is plenty of evidence that there is Iranian involvement with these networks that are making high-explosive IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and that are endangering our troops, and that's going to be dealt with."

However, Rice failed to provide any evidence of official Iranian involvement.

The previous pattern had been that U.S. and British officials suggest that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate U.S. armoured vehicles is the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admit that they have no evidence to support it.

That charge serves not just one administration objective but two: it provides an additional justification for aggressive rhetoric and pressures against Tehran and also suggests that Iran bears much of the blame for the sectarian violence in Baghdad and high levels of U.S. casualties from IEDs.

The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of U.S. troops from shaped charges fired at armoured vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

The U.S. command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. ... the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infrared detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents' "resourcefulness", according to the Pentagon source.

But sometime in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On Aug. 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to NBC and CBS that U.S. troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been "smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week".

The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were "convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government."

These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

But the administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the enemies of the militant Shiite parties in Iraq that were aligned with Iran.

British troops in Shiite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shiite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armoured vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told BCC on Oct. 5, 2005 that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah." But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

Privately British officials said that the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006 that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south.

However, the U.S. administration continued to push that accusation, and Bush himself raised the theme for the first time at a press conference Mar. 13, 2006. "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today," he said, "came from Iran."

Bush quoted the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to building improvised explosive devices."

No reporter has followed up on what Negroponte meant by providing the "capability" to build such devices or why it the militias would need to go outside Iraq to find that know-how.

The day after Bush's press conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq. Rumsfeld, appearing with Pace, said, "All you know is that you find equipment in a country that came from the neighbouring country." [emphasis added]

Last November, as the release of the Iraq Study Report approached, administration officials again planted the story of intercepted Iranian-made weapons and munitions it had leaked in mid-2005. ABC news reported Nov. 30 that a "senior defence official" had told them of "smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand new weapons fresh from Iranian factories."

The new twist in the story was that the weapons allegedly had manufacturing dates in 2006. The story continued, "This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market."

The assumption underlying the anti-Iran defence department spin that a private market for weapons or, more likely, components, could not move them from Iran across the porous border to Iraq in a few months is far-fetched.

At about the same time Bush apparently gave orders that the U.S. military should seize any Iranians in the country in an effort to get some kind of evidence to use in support of its propaganda theme. The first such operation came in central Baghdad just before Christmas, and a second raid against Iranian diplomats in Erbil was carried out to coincide with the president's speech last Wednesday.

These raids, presented to the public as part of a campaign against targets supposedly identified through good intelligence, were clearly aimed at trying to substantiate an anti-Iran line for which the administration has no credible evidence. Those raids now create a requirement to produce something new to justify them.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0116-08.htm

like the run up to war in iraq, we now have fabrications of "intelligence" to justify incursion into iran ... whose kids are going to be drafted to fight that war for more oil?

comments fom the kool aid gallery are now solicited

BroncoBilly · #6 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 04:55 AM

Post anything that indicates Bush intends on attacking Iran. You phishing loons are always on the prowl, why don't you comment on the success of collaboration from the United States to get North Korea to disarm. What no comment? The democrats turn is coming and we shall see if your venom makes the transition, this is about the survival of our nation and peace in the world and all you want to do is flame the fire of hate.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...=theworld&col=

ashleykennedy · #7 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 05:27 AM

"LIBYA MODEL"

The New York Times said officials at the White House and the State Department were preparing for a major announcement this weekend, and described it as different from the nuclear freeze that the Clinton administration negotiated in 1994.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-ArticlePage1

Its not as though it's any different from the deal negotiated by Clinton only Bush has to try to sell it to the US citizens as the Republican way.

Bush can't even keep track of what's in International agreements.

And China's pulling Bush's chain with all those Dollar bonds they hold.

BroncoBilly · #8 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p=&quot

"LIBYA MODEL"

The New York Times said officials at the White House and the State Department were preparing for a major announcement this weekend, and described it as different from the nuclear freeze that the Clinton administration negotiated in 1994.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-ArticlePage1

Its not as though it's any different from the deal negotiated by Clinton only Bush has to try to sell it to the US citizens as the Republican way.

Bush can't even keep track of what's in International agreements.

And China's pulling Bush's chain with all those Dollar bonds they hold.

Fact is, it is being done now, so you can try and shoot all the holes in it you want.

JohnnyDestroyer · #9 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 05:43 AM

At the very least, we know what kind of nuclear weapons we'll be up against when we do go to war with Iran...after all, we have the receipts.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=806

http://www.okimc.org/newswire.php?st...rint_page=true

I think its sick how these Halliburton reps will actually sell Cyrus Nasseri, Oil Kish AND Iranian Nuclear Engineer, cheif engineer actually, Centrifuges, the kind used to enrich uranium.

Why not keep arms out of Irans hands? because we NEED the Caspian Sea natural gas complex..the one, Halliburton BUILT..

this whole middle east fiasco is fairly transperant, opium production is up in afganistan, cocaines legal in mexico, accelerating the heroin trade, but we dont care, we "won" afganistan, namely, by milking all of the money out of it. Nevermind the refugees, or Bin Laden...Hell, we're not even actively searching for Bin Laden..

Bin Laden got away with it. I don't accept that non-sense from this administration, not at all.

Pretty lame, we can't just fight for what is right anymore, we need to set em up first.

JP5 · #10 (**permalink**) 02-10-2007, 05:51 AM

And the libs and Dems wonder why the rest of us believe you to be unpatriotic and anti-American. Here's a perfect example. You continue to reinforce that belief of ours every day. You could all very well be the spokesman for al Qaeda, bin Laden, Iran, and the bad guys in Iraq. It's clear you'd choose ANY of them over the U.S.

Sad. But true.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode