"Three-day blitz" plan for Iran

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yup...britain, france, germany, russia, chian, saudia arabia, egypt, israel, UN, clinton, hillary, kerry, teddy kennedy, us congress, UN, Saddam himself. All "sheeps and cronies".

Are these the "sheeps and cronies" you are talking about?

How many of those countries invaded Iraq without finding evidence of WMDs, even if they thought maybe Iraq had them?
How many of any countries who "participated" in the invasion and occupation of Iraq would have done so if the U.S. had not?
How many countries in the world had a domestic population that favored going into Iraq before the war started? I would speculate 3 or less.

And also, the fact that the leaders of other countries can be really stupid is no excuse for my leaders to behave really stupid.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

How many of those countries invaded Iraq without finding evidence of WMDs, even if they thought maybe Iraq had them?
How many of any countries who "participated" in the invasion and occupation of Iraq would have done so if the U.S. had not?
How many countries in the world had a domestic population that favored going into Iraq before the war started? I would speculate 3 or less.

And also, the fact that the leaders of other countries can be really stupid is no excuse for my leaders to behave really stupid.

Devin are we talking about how many of those "sheep and cronies" believe that Iraq had WMDs or something else?

So your statement is that the "sheep and cronies" was the majority of the industrialized world?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

I would rather nobody have them, of course. But while Israel has them, I think it's ridiculous to expect Iran not to pursue them.

Same question..Is there any country that you would be willing to stop from getting nuclear weapons?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

I would rather nobody have them, of course. But while Israel has them, I think it's ridiculous to expect Iran not to pursue them.

so, if israel has nukes their enemies are allowed to have nukes?

would iran's enemies then be justified in getting their own nukes?

is any enemy of america justified in developig nukes?

that pretty much tears up the non-proliferation treaty.

the idea is fewer nukes. no new members of the nuclear club allowed.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Devin are we talking about how many of those "sheep and cronies" believe that Iraq had WMDs or something else?

So your statement is that the "sheep and cronies" was the majority of the industrialized world?

Whether or not any country "believed" Saddam had WMD's is irrelevant. The point is that you can't act on such a belief by attacking a nation unless you can back it up with evidence. What you believe without evidence should not be a basis of attacking a nation and taking lives.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Same question..Is there any country that you would be willing to stop from getting nuclear weapons?

As long as there is one country with them, any country can justify having them. That's the dilemma. My position is that no country with them has the right to tell another country not to.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

my position is that I don't think an iran armed with nukes would present a threat to the US....

....so in that sense I'm "okay" with it....

.... I'd say that it's unlikely that the Iranians will ask me for permission and I'm disinclined to tell them how to manage their own affairs so long as they're unlikely to mingle in mind.

so you don't believe that the usa should support nuclear non-proliferation to the extent of enforcing the treaty?

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so, if israel has nukes their enemies are allowed to have nukes?

would iran's enemies then be justified in getting their own nukes?

is any enemy of america justified in developig nukes?

that pretty much tears up the non-proliferation treaty.

the idea is fewer nukes. no new members of the nuclear club allowed.

As long as 1 country has them, any country can justify having them as a matter of defense.
I'm all for fewer nukes. A real non-proliferation treaty would work toward the disarming of all of them. But you can't expect a country with a nuclear neighbor not to pursue them while there are still other nukes out there. That would be like asking the U.S. to disarm all its nukes now, while there are still others out there.
When you use the word "allow," you've already stepped outside of being able to see the problem. As long as there is one country or a few countries with nukes that are doing the allowing, any rogue nation has plenty justification for pursuing nukes.

Edit: In my view there is a need for international agreement to disarm them all. And once that process is proceeding with an end in sight, then there is real authority to prevent any new nation from developing them.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

As long as there is one country with them, any country can justify having them. That's the dilemma.

frankly, your position is ridiculous. the nations of the world have the right to say they can't.

My position is that no country with them has the right to tell another country not to.

so, if a country that doesn't have nukes says that iran can't have them, that would be ok and iran can't have nukes, right?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

Whether or not any country "believed" Saddam had WMD's is irrelevant. The point is that you can't act on such a belief by attacking a nation unless you can back it up with evidence. What you believe without evidence should not be a basis of attacking a nation and taking lives.

No it's quite relevant when you call other countries cronies, etc. and that dubya lied etc. It disproves that meme.

If the argument is that we should never have attacked them then that is another argument imo.

And if the argument STAYS on whether we should/should not stop Iran from having them that is another argument. Make your case, that's fine, but trying to make it by saying that someone lied about it Iraq, fooled someone (except saddam) is not a credible argument.

If the argument is that you must wait for a country to use a nuclear weapon before you believe they have one, then that is another argument.

My argument is that I would not allow a rogue nation to have a nuclear weapon. There is a debate to have, fine.

[DevinFuture]

frankly, your position is ridiculous.

Sorry you think so.


so, if a country that doesn't have nukes says that iran can't have them, that would be ok and iran can't have nukes, right?[/QUOTE]

That doesn't follow from what I stated at all. I don't think any one nation has the right to demand of another not to have nukes. I think that the international community has the moral authority to deny nukes to any nation, WHEN there is a process in place to disarm all nukes currently developed. Such a process could have been in place years ago if the world's countries that currenlty have nukes actually had the interest in preventing nuclear war.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

As long as 1 country has them, any country can justify having them as a matter of defense.

They can attempt to and if you believe they are not a threat to their neighbors then you can agree with it. I do not agree with that position. Iran is way too rogue to "trust" them with such a weapon imo. Way too rogue.

I do not care if Iran is "justified" in some sort of legalistic manner. They are not justified to threaten the entire middle east.

Hitler was also "justified" in annexing Austria and the Sudetenland. All he did was threaten to go to war unless he was able to annex them. The allies allowing this was just as naive as letting Iran get nukes.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

That doesn't follow from what I stated at all. I don't think any one nation has the right to demand of another not to have nukes. I think that the international community has the moral authority to deny nukes to any nation, WHEN there is a process in place to disarm all nukes currently developed. Such a process could have been in place years ago if the world's countries that currenlty have nukes actually had the interest in preventing nuclear war.

This would certainly be Irans, Libya's, N.Koreas position.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

As long as 1 country has them, any country can justify having them as a matter of defense.
I'm all for fewer nukes. A real non-proliferation treaty would work toward the disarming of all of them. But you can't expect a country with a nuclear neighbor not to pursue them while there are still other nukes out there. That would be like asking the U.S. to disarm all its nukes now, while there are still others out there.
When you use the word "allow," you've already stepped outside of being able to see the problem. As long as there is one country or a few countries with nukes that are doing the allowing, any rogue nation has plenty justification for pursuing nukes.

Edit: In my view there is a need for international agreement to disarm them all. And once that process is proceeding with an end in sight, then there is real authority to prevent any new nation from developing them.

first of all, we're talking about non-proliferation, not disarmament.

the world agreed, and iran was a party to this agreement, as is the usa and most of the members of the nuclear club, no new nuclear weapons programs. status quo on the membership.

I'm sure that you are grateful that there's been no nuclear devices set off since 1945. that isn't just luck, it's due to fewer countries with weapons and their possibly going off.

there is no justification for iran having nukes. there is no justification for any country to develop them.

[DevinFuture]

dude1394, here's the bottom line for me.
The biggest rogue nation in the world right now is not Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or whoever. It is the United States. Not only do we attack other countries unprovoked and establish military bases on the soil of sovereign nations all around the world. We are also the only country who has ever used nukes on another country.
If there is one country that I trust least with nukes, I certianly don't have to look as far as the Middle East.
Do I want Iran to have nukes? Of course not. Do I want the most irresponsible warmongering country on the planet to start another war with them over it? No, I want that even less.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you don't believe that the usa should support nuclear non-proliferation to the extent of enforcing the treaty?

by "enforcing the treaty" do you mean going to war?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

Sorry you think so.

That doesn't follow from what I stated at all. I don't think any one nation has the right to demand of another not to have nukes. I think that the international community has the moral authority to deny nukes to any nation, WHEN there is a process in place to disarm all nukes currently developed. Such a process could have been in place years ago if the world's countries that currenlty have nukes actually had the interest in preventing nuclear war.

it's ridiculous to link an abscence of moral authority to prevent nuclear proliferation simply because all the existing nuclear weapons haven't been destroyed. the authority exists regardless of if we've removed every nuke out there.

as for the international community and all, are you familiar with this? non-proliferation treaty

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

by "enforcing the treaty" do you mean going to war?

yep. going all the way....

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first of all, we're talking about non-proliferation, not disarmament.

the world agreed, and iran was a party to this agreement, as is the usa and most of the members of the nuclear club, no new nuclear weapons programs. status quo on the membership.

I'm sure that you are grateful that there's been no nuclear devices set off since 1945. that isn't just luck, it's due to fewer countries with weapons and their possibly going off.

there is no justification for iran having nukes. there is no justification for any country to develop them.

No not to "develope them" it to have em. And the US has them thts the problem..yet they are the first to jump at any1 who is trying to get nuclear energy or as some think nuclear weapons. How long do u think it would take Iran to build the # of weapons the US has. I think a really long time. So ever1 should get rid of theirs and then this topic can be discussed. It doesnt mean tht if a country has them already tht its fine as long as they dont get anymore.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

dude1394, here's the bottom line for me.
The biggest rogue nation in the world right now is not Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or whoever. It is the United States. Not only do we attack other countries unprovoked and establish military bases on the soil of sovereign nations all around the world. We are also the only country who has ever used nukes on another country.
If there is one country that I trust least with nukes, I certianly don't have to look as far as the Middle East.
Do I want Iran to have nukes? Of course not. Do I want the most irresponsible warmongering country on the planet to start another war with them over it? No, I want that even less.

Quite unfortunate. Since you feel that way, then I imagine you would propose we bring all troops home from the rest of the world. It is the only course of action that your belief would support. As well as remove any security guarantees to S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Saudia Arabia as well.

The world will be a very different place if your politics become reality. And imo you will not like it, nor will the US.

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

dude1394, here's the bottom line for me.
The biggest rogue nation in the world right now is not Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or whoever. It is the United States. Not only do we attack other countries unprovoked and establish military bases on the soil of sovereign nations all around the world. We are also the only country who has ever used nukes on another country.
If there is one country that I trust least with nukes, I certianly don't have to look as far as the Middle East.
Do I want Iran to have nukes? Of course not. Do I want the most irresponsible warmongering country on the planet to start another war with them over it? No, I want that even less.

I completely agree with your point here

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Are there any countries that you would NOT be okay with having nuclear weapons and you would be willing to stop them?

And as a follow-up I assume that you were also against the Bosnia engagement as well as the first iraqi war? Neither a threat to the US, right?

canada.

as for bad bill's airshow over kosovo, i thought it was pretty senseless...I guess you could say that I generally agreed with the republicans on the matter....

as for Gulf War, the Beginning....I was a bit more of an establishment like thinker at the time, so I didn't oppose it much, or think much about whether I should oppose it. If I had to think it through all over again, I'm frankly not sure where I'd come down....at least it wasn't a quagmire which moved us 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

[DevinFuture]

Mavdog, we're not going to agree on this. And you're not going to change my mind by saying my position is ridiculous or naive.
But I will say that if you don't agree with me that the U.S. has proven itself the greatest threat to world security, there is little at all that we would agree to in terms of international relations, because I find that pretty basic.

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Quite unfortunate. Since you feel that way, then I imagine you would propose we bring all troops home from the rest of the world. It is the only course of action that your belief would support.

Why not bring em home?? I dont believe there is any other country tht has just spread their forces around the world and has them sitting there or getting killed while their politicians talk about it like they are the ones getting things done or dying.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yep. going all the way....

then my answer is "not at all."

the purpose of treaties is to help us stay out of wars....if enforcing a treaty gets us into a war which is otherwise avoidable then the treaty is hardly worth enforcing.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Why not bring em home?? I dont believe there is any other country tht has just spread their forces around the world and has them sitting there or getting killed while their politicians talk about it like they are the ones getting things done or dying.

that is certainly a position. IMO it's a position that makes the world much,much more dangerous. Without US protection, Taiwan would be invaded I'm quite sure. Japan would certainly be forced to go into a military build-up to protect themselves from China and N. Korea missiles.

I would expect easily that the Middle eastern oil would not be flowing at the moment, it would be hijacked by other forces and probably the shipping lanes closed.

That is why.

Not to mention that russia would have certainly been much more aggressive with europe after WWII and Saddam would have Kuwait and be threatening (or have already conquered) Saudia Arabia.

why not bring home all the cops in your town?

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by dude1394

that is certainly a position. IMO it's a position that makes the world much,much more dangerous. Without US protection, Taiwan would be invaded I'm quite sure. Japan would certainly be forced to go into a military build-up to protect themselves from China and N. Korea missiles.

I would expect easily that the Middle eastern oil would not be flowing at the moment, it would be hijacked by other forces and probably the shipping lanes closed.

That is why.

Not to mention that russia would have certainly been much more aggressive with europe after WWII and Saddam would have Kuwait and be threatening (or have already conquered) Saudia Arabia.

why not bring home all the cops in your town?

Because they are in my town and not half the world over in some1 elses town. And if the cops from my town went to help another town when help was needed I would be fine with it, as long as they came bak. but it seems the the US decides they should stick around everywhere they go somwhere

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Because they are in my town and not half the world over in some1 elses town. And if the cops from my town went to help another town when help was needed I would be fine with it, as long as they came bak. but it seems the the US decides they should stick around everywhere they go somwhere

the reason I brought up policemen is for you to think through your position. If there were no policemen then the local neighborhoods and homes would be forced to provide their own protection (much like gangs in inner-cities now do). This would make your town much more dangerous than it is now.

If you extrapolate that to the world at large then I see the same thing happening. Bosnia and Iraq1 is a fine example. Even WITH the US hanging out there, those conflicts happened. Others would as well.

Please tell me where the US is stationed that the government has asked us to leave? Possibly cuba, but I think our location there is actually our indefinite lease or something like that.

[AxdemxO]

Wait...are you hearing what I am saying every town has its cops..some better then other but every town has them. So I dont think the US has to go around and make sure everything is ok in every other country...they can do it by themselves.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Wait...are you hearing what I am saying every town has its cops..some better then other but every town has them. So I dont think the US has to go around and make sure everything is ok in every other country...they can do it by themselves.

Yes I hear what you are saying. However you have to think through what happens if the US pulls back into our borders, land as well as sea. Things happen, countries change their behaviour. Things are not static. Countries will protect themselves as they will be forced to. The effect would at a minimum be much more nuclear prolifieration than now.

IMO countries will begin acting just like your town would begin acting without cops. They would group together seperately, certainly there would be a very large military expansion by those countries and certainly Japan would be one of the biggest. They would have to get nukes and expand their military to protect themselves from China.

The countries of Europe would have to determine what to do about russia for example.

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes I hear what you are saying. However you have to think through what happens if the US pulls back into our borders, land as well as sea. Things happen, countries change their behaviour. Things are not static. Countries will protect themselves as they will be forced to. The effect would at a minimum be much more nuclear prolifieration than now.

IMO countries will begin acting just like your town would begin acting without cops. They would group together seperately, certainly there would be a very large military expansion by those countries and certainly Japan would be one of the biggest. They would have to get nukes and expand their military to protect themselves from China.

The countries of Europe would have to determine what to do about russia for example.

OK this is the first time i see a possible reall conversation between me and you. I dont think we should assume tht all those countries would attack each other ( China/Japan). I mean i see ur point too...but I think its almost like saying if the US didnt exist the world would be a living hell...sorta thing. and i dont think thts tru.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

OK this is the first time i see a possible reall conversation between me and you. I dont think we should assume tht all those countries would attack each other ( China/Japan). I mean i see ur point too...but I think its almost like saying if the US didnt exist the world would be a living hell...sorta thing. and i dont think thts tru.

Japan and China it's very difficult to argue against as they were aggressively invading and fighting each other for years before WWII. And certainly during it. Japan was particularly violent. Rape of Nanking comes to mind.

You can look back in history to see what went on and would continue to go on in my opinion.. Europe is a good example, in less than 50 years they had two world wars, countless wars before then. Only when NATO was formed did that stop. Having a single enemy to oppose certainly helped but try to think what would have happened without the obvious US hegemony at that time? Or moreover, our willingness to go to war if anyone of them were attacked. If we shouldn't have protected Kuwait, then why europe for example.

There would be strife, followed by some sort of equilibrium and then followed by more strife etc until someone (could have been a benign super-power or a very aggressive (russia) superpower) arose.

Carrying the withdrawal to it's conclusion, the US would not have been willing(or able, as why increase military spending when you are going to be switzerland) to come to the europeans aid allies when the Soviets were threatening to run them over with their tanks. To hear some talk, if we'd only withdraw from the world, russia wouldn't have been nearly as aggressive and would have just collapsed of it's own weight. This is a fantasy imo.

I could have a discussion that the US takes too much upon itself and I could be convinced of that. But I don't know the level.

However if you think about the "good" of the world, the us's willingness to be the global cop has meant 100's of millions of people out of poverty due to global trade and security. Enhanced by secure shipping lanes and availability of energy as well as a lack of militirization and nuclear proliferation.

Think of just Japan's reasons for WWII? Much of it was because of their lack of resources. If there were a global market in oil and energy resources at that time, secured by a benign superpwoer, much of their reasons for being that aggressive would not have been so prevalent.

[alexamenos]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dude1394 again.

^^^^good post....i don't completely agree (for instance, the failings and shortcomings of communism would have inevitably caught up with the Soviets), and i definitely think there is a point of diminishing returns (and a point where altruism becomes foolishness)...

but a thoughtful and interesting post.

cheers

[dude1394]

Hmmm...so the left has been telling us for so long how the US should be more like europe, more peaceful, less inclined to go all cowboy. So France probably has as much knowledge and influence in the Middle East than most (if not all) countries.

So is this the "neo-cons" now infiltrating France? Somehow I doubt it.
http://www.africasia.com/services/ne...5.64tw9sg0.php

World should 'prepare for the worst' over Iran: France

The world should "prepare for the worst ... (which) is war" over the Iranian nuclear crisis, but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on television and radio.

"We must negotiate right to the end," with Iran, he said, but underlined that if Tehran possessed an atomic weapon, it would represent "a real danger for the whole world."

[dude1394]

As mavdog says...the french are taking the potential of a nuclear IRAN with their missile technology VERY seriously. As they well should.

http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/...with-iran.html

Sunday, September 16, 2007
FRANCE: PREPARE FOR WAR WITH IRAN

Whoa, this is serious. The French don't usually say stuff like this unless they really, really mean it. And they're saying it. Loudly. The BBC reports today:

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.

Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world". MORE...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Listen to the U.N.inspectors they know what is going on...

IAEA Chief Defends Iran Plan
By GEORGE JAHN – Sep 7, 2007

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — The chief U.N. nuclear inspector warned Friday against sounding the "war drums" over the Iranian nuclear standoff and said he sees no reason to go beyond diplomacy in apparent criticism of the U.S. position.

Is this the organization that you put so much trust in? Sorry not me brotha'.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Two weeks after Israel’s alleged bombing raid in Syria, which some foreign reports said targeted North Korean nuclear material, the UN’s nuclear watchdog elected Syria as deputy chairman of its General Conference on Monday.

The 51st session of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) opened in Vienna on Monday and will run through Friday.

The Syrian news agency SANA proudly reported the election on Tuesday, adding that Syria was also successful in including “the Israeli nuclear arsenal as an item on the agenda of the conference.”

The agenda for the meeting includes the item “Israeli nuclear capabilities and threat.” While Iran will be a focus of the discussions, there is no item on the agenda referring to the Islamic Republic by name.

[dude1394]

Let me try to guess at the rationalization for doing nothing about this.

- US goes into Iraq
- US won't leave Iraq
- Iran provides material and now special forces to help kill american soldiers and our Iraqi allies.

what to do...

- Nothing, since we shouldn't be there anyway, the US is getting what it deserves. ??

Or is there another answer that I"m not aware of?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Coalition forces on Thursday arrested a suspected member of an elite Iranian unit that has been accused of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. military said.
art.carbomb.afp.gi.jpg

An Iraqi soldier guards the scene of a car bomb Thursday in eastern Baghdad.

The military said the suspect, who was not identified, is a member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force.

The U.S. military calls the force "a covert action arm of the Iranian government responsible for aiding lethal attacks against the Iraqi government and coalition forces."

The military said the Quds Force suspect was involved in bringing roadside bombs from Iran into Iraq and in training foreign terrorists in Iraq.

The man, captured in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya, is one of several Iranians in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Also on Thursday, an Iraqi National Police intelligence officer was taken into custody for "suspected involvement in illegal militia activities," the U.S. military said.

[Arne]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/fee...py_satellite-0

American spy satellite downed in Peru as US nuclear attack on Iran thwarted

Russian Military Intelligence Analysts are reporting today that one of the United States most secretive spy satellites, the KH-13, targeting Iran was 'destroyed in its orbit' with its main power generator powered by the radioactive isotope Pu-238 surviving re-entry and crashing in a remote region of the South American Nation of Peru, and where hundreds are reported to be ill from radiation poisoning.

Western media reports are stating that the US spy satellite debris hitting Peru was caused by a meteor, but which, according to these reports, would be 'impossible' as the size of 30-meter crater, if caused by a meteorite, would have hit the ground with about as much energy as 1 kiloton tactical nuclear weapon, and which would have been recorded by the seismic stations around the World.

Most astonishing about these reports, however, are that they state that it was the Americans themselves who destroyed their own spy satellite with the attack upon it being made by the United States Air Forces' 30th Space Wing located at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This incident further fuels the intrigue involving the United States War Leaders plans to attack Iran in their attempt to engulf the entire Middle East in Total War, but, against which, according to Russian Military Intelligence Analysts, a 'high ranking and significant' faction of the American Military Establishment is opposed to.

This can be further evidenced by this past few weeks unprecedented announcement by the United States Air Force that 6 nuclear armed cruise missiles were removed, without authorization, from their secure holding facility, located in North Dakota at the Minot Air Force Base, and flown to Barksdale Air Force Base, located in Louisiana, where they were left 'unattended' for 'nearly 10 hours'.

It is interesting to note, too, that Barksdale Air Force Base is where the United States President was 'ordered' to report to on September 11, 2001 by the United States Air Force Strategic Command prior to his being 'transferred' under 'armed escort' to Offutt Air Force Base Strategic Command Center near Omaha, Nebraska, where the first 'truce' between Americas War Leaders and its Military Forces was 'negotiated' by billionaire Warren Buffett as intermediary between the rival power blocs.

Though the rival American power blocs do seem to have maintained their uneasy truce, and which have, to date, prevented further attacks within the United States itself, these latest events, according to these reports, appear to show that this truce is now breaking down over threats and planning by the American War Leaders to attack Iran, and which Russia has warned would be 'catastrophic'.


What remains unknown to us, at this time, is what counter-planning the American War Leaders have in store for furthering their war aims against Iran as the United States Military have 'clearly signaled' that it will not allow nuclear weapons to be used, even to the extent of denying to their War Leaders one of their most prized spy satellites used to guide their nuclear cruise missiles to their intended Iranian targets.

As the American peoples desire for war appears to be exhausted, and with new polls showing their President and Congress' approval ratings at 'record lows', these reports paint a frightening picture of an American War Leadership determined to engulf the entire World in Total War in order to perpetuate their hegemony.

Not since last century's German Nazi and Japanese Empire's has the World seen such naked aggression towards the capture of the Earth's resources, and which caused the deaths of nearly 100 million people, but which the United States and its Western Allies now seem determined to see through to its brutal, and bloody end.

[dalmations202]

Good read Arne.

If you believe this opinion article though, then the US is run by factions that control both the media and the military. I have not seen this in any American papers (as I wouldn't expect to).

If this could be true, and Americans are not hearing it, then what Americans are hearing is what they believe (just like most countries do, including Russia, and Germany). This is also why I call most people sheeple -- they are led to believe what they read in the paper or is put out by the MSM.

There is far more going on out there than most people realize, and control is a bigger question than fact in most cases.

I am not saying your article is true, in fact it shows to be on an opinion page which means it could have between 0-100% credibility. With it being a Russian opinion page that also skews the bias. With that said, I have no idea how much truth their is to the article.

This though, was worth reading..... thank you for the article.

[mcsluggo]

it is nice to know that SOMEBODY has stepped up and filled the vast void left when the WeeklyWorldNews went belly up.