Iran

[wmbwinn]

Report: Bush Backs Israel Strike Plans on Iran

Sunday, July 13, 2008 7:19 AM

Article Font Size






The Sunday Times of London reported this weekend that "President George W. Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down." The Times report quoted a senior Pentagon official as its source.


With increased resistance from the Pentagon and the November elections closing in, the White House may be choosing its next best option in dealing with Tehran: to have Israel launch strikes on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

The paper said Bush has told Israel it has an "amber light" to proceed.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the paper quoted a U.S. official as saying.

Military experts are not sure that Israel's military forces can do the job. Iran has dispersed its nuclear program sites around the country, and some weapons facilities are said to be deep within the earth. The U.S. has special bunker-busting bombs that could destroy such underground laboratories, but Israel does not.

Iran has made clear it will retaliate against Israel and the U.S. if either nation attacks it. Last week, Iran's military demonstrated its reach by firing nine long- and medium-range missiles -- including the modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which can easily strike Israel from western Iran.

Political factors may be playing a role in strike plans for both Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Bush is in lame-duck status, and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, the front-runner to win the presidency in November, says he favors the use of diplomacy over force when dealing with Iran.

Olmert is facing a political crisis as corruption charges threaten his hold on office. Some Israeli political analysts say Olmert may order an attack on Iran to bolster his political standing in Jerusalem.

The Times cited one of Olmert's closest friends as quoting the prime minister: "In three months’ time it will be a different Middle East.”

Editor's Note: Get Ken Timmerman's Special Report: 6 Days of Hell: the Coming War with Iran -- Go Here Now





© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bus...mo_code=65E3-1

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

There have been a great number of articles with similar speculation. It is still only speculation.

I do not know how to create a poll.

It would be fun to turn this into a poll if someone posting behind me knows how to do it.

Do you think Israel or the US or the two together will strike Iran before the US elections happen?
Yes
No

Even if a formal poll is not created, you can still pick one and expand...

[rmacomic]

Thank God!!!! I was hoping to see nuclear holocaust in my lifetime!!!!

[ShaggyDirk]

the rest of the article

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.
There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.
Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.
Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.
The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.
Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.
The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.
Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.
Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.
Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.
Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.
“The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”
A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.
In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.
Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.
“No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.
Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.
“Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”

[ribosoma]

The old Wag the Dog trick....

Create an enemy so you can make money destroying him.

Halliburton Sold Iranian Oil Company Key Nuclear Reactor Components, Sources Say
by Jason Leopold
August 10, 2005

Scandal-plagued Halliburton -- the oil services company once headed by Vice President Cheney -- sold an Iranian oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, say Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.

Halliburton was secretly working at the time with one of Iran’s top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and sold the components in April to the official's oil development company, the sources said.

Just last week, a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, whose miltary unit just reported a 284 percent increase in its second quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the means to build a nuclear weapon.

With Iran's new hardline government now firmly in place, Iranian officials have rounded up relatives and close business associates of Iran's former President and defeated mullah presidential candidate Hashemi Rafsanjani, alleging the men were involved in widespread corruption of Iran's oil industry, specifically tied to the country's business dealings with Halliburton.

On July 27, one of Iran's many state countrolled news agencies, FARS, an 'information' arm of the Islamic judiciary, announced the arrest of several of the executives of the Oriental Oil Kish Company, which is owned by Rafsanjani's children and other relatives.

"They were brought up on charges of economic corruption," according to a report posted on the Iran Press News website. “Following the necessary investigations by the judiciary's bailiffs, with warrants from the public prosecutor's office (mainly mullahs who only dole out Islamic jurisprudence), the case of economic corruption and malfeasance, certain of the authorities of Oriental Kish Oil Company have been arrested and under questioning. The head of the board of directors was also among those detained.”

Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil and natural gas development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team and has been negotiating Iran's nuclear development issues with the European Union and at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with U.S. energy companies to develop the country's oil industry,” the Financial Times reported.

“A reliable source stated that, given the parameters, the close-knit cooperation and association of one of the key members of the regime's nuclear negotiation team with Halliburton can be an alarm bell which will necessarily instigate the dynamics of the members of the regimes' negotiating committee,” according to the Iran Press News story.

Oriental Oil Kish is registerd in the United Kingdom and Dubai.

Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, Iranian government officials said. During the first round of interrogations in the judiciary, a huge network of oil mafia has been exposed, according to the IPS report.

It’s unclear whether Halliburton was privy to information regarding Iran’s nuclear activites. Halliburton sources said the company sold centrifuges and detonators to be used specifically for a nuclear reactor and oil and natural gas drilling parts for well projects to Oriental Oil Kish.

A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. A White House spokesperson also did not return calls for comment.

In 1991, Halliburton sold Libya, another country that sponsors terrorism, nuclear detonator devices. The company paid more than $3 million in fines for violating a U.S. trade embargo that President Reagan imposed in 1986 because of Libya's ties to terrorist activities.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.

Following the announcement, Halliburton said the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment."

Halliburton, under mounting pressure from lawmakers in Washington, D.C., pulled out of its deal with Nasseri's company in May, but has done extensive work on other areas of the Iranian gas project and was still acting in an advisory capacity to Nasseri's company, two people who have knowledge of Halliburton's work in Iran said.

In an attempt to curtail other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations, the Senate approved legislation July 26 that would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct business in Libya, Iran and Syria, and avoid U.S. sanctions under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is part of the Senate Defense Authorization bill.

“It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran,” Collins said in a statement.

"The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism -- most often aimed against America," she said.

The law currently doesn’t prohibit foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with rogue nations provided that the subsidiaries are truly independent of the parent company.

But Halliburton’s Cayman Island subsidiary never did fit that description.

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.

According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is non-American. But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.”

Moreover, mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company’s Dallas headquarters.

Not surprisingly, in a letter drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives vehemently objected to the amendment saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the United States and “greatly strain relations with the United States’ primary trading partners.”

“Extraterritorial measures irritate relations with the very nations the United States must secure cooperation from to promote multilateral strategies to fight terrorism and to address other areas of mutual concern,” said a letter signed by the Coalition for Employment through Exports, Emergency Coalition for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, USA Engage, U.S. Council on International Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty, often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”

Still, Collins’ amendment has some holes. As Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney pointed out in a July 25 story, “the Collins amendment would seek to penalize individuals or entities who evade IEEPA sanctions -- if they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

“This is merely a restatement of existing regulations," Gaffney said.

"The problem with this formulation is that, in the process of purportedly closing one loophole, it would appear to create new ones. As Sen. Collins told the Senate: "Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm."

"It is a safe bet that every foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company doing business with terrorist states will claim it is one of the ones Sen. Collins would allow to continue enriching our enemies, not one prohibited from doing so,” Gaffney said.

Going a step further, Dow Jones Newswires reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent letters in June to energy corporations demanding that the companies disclose in their security filings any business dealings with terrorist supporting nations.

“The letters have been sent by the SEC's Office of Global Security Risk, a special division that monitors companies with operations in Iran and other countries under U.S. sanctions, which were created by the U.S. Congress in 2004,” Dow Jones reported.

The move comes as investors have become increasingly concerned that they may be unwillingly supporting terrorist activity. In the case of Halliburton, the New York City Comptroller's office threatened in March 2003 to pull its $23 million investment in the company if Halliburton continued to conduct business with Iran.

The SEC letters are aimed at forcing corporations to disclose their profits from business dealings rogue nations. Oil companies, such as Devon Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp., that currently conduct business with countries that sponsor terrorism, have not disclosed the profits received from terrorist countries in their most recent quarterly reports because the companies don’t consider the earnings “material.”

Devon Energy was until recently conducting business in Syria. The company just sold its stake in an oil field there. ConocoPhillips has a service contract with the Syrian Petroleum Co. that expires on Dec. 31.

---
Jason Leopold is the author of the explosive memoir, News Junkie, to be released in the spring of 2006 by Process/Feral House Books. Visit Leopold's website at www.jasonleopold.com for updates.

[Dirkadirkastan]

There has always been carefully worded talk about "leaving Iraq". There has never been talk about "bringing our troops home".

The two are completely different things.

[wmbwinn]

Yet, what is Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House doing?

Some 220 members, a majority, have endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362. This virtual war resolution "demands" that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.

The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.

Last week, Mossad's chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel's armed forces.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27521

______________________________----

If Buchanon is correct, even Pelosi is pushing events forward that might result in war with Iran...

[wmbwinn]

So, when does the Iran war start?


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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/...a/nuclear_iran

VIENNA, Austria - Iran signaled Thursday that it will no longer cooperate with U.N. experts probing for signs of clandestine nuclear weapons work, confirming the investigation is at a dead end a year after it began.

The announcement from Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh compounded skepticism about denting Tehran's nuclear defiance, just five days after Tehran stonewalled demands from six world powers that it halt activities capable of producing the fissile core of warheads.

Besides demanding a suspension of uranium enrichment — a process that can create both fuel for nuclear reactors and payloads for atomic bombs — the six powers have been pressing Tehran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency's probe.

Iran, which is obligated as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to develop nuclear arms, raised suspicions about its intentions when it admitted in 2002 that it had run a secret nuclear program for nearly two decades in violation of its commitment.

The Tehran regime insists it halted such work and is now only trying to produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity. It agreed on a "work plan" with the Vienna-based IAEA a year ago for U.N. inspectors to look into allegations Iran is still doing weapons work.

At the time, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei hailed it as "a significant step forward" that would fill in the missing pieces of Tehran's nuclear jigsaw puzzle — if honored by Iran. He brushed aside suggestions Iran was using the deal as a smoke screen to deflect attention from its continued defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand for a halt to uranium enrichment.

The investigation ran into trouble just months after being launched. Deadline after deadline was extended because of Iranian foot-dragging. The probe, originally meant to be completed late last year, spilled into the first months of 2008, and beyond.

Iran remains defiant. It dismisses as fabricated the evidence supplied by the U.S. and other members of the IAEA's governing board purportedly backing allegations that Iranians continue to work on nuclear weapons.

Officials say that among the evidence given to the IAEA are what seem to be Iranian draft plans to refit missiles with nuclear warheads; explosives tests that could be used to develop a nuclear detonator; and a drawing showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads. There are also questions about links between Iran's military and civilian nuclear facilities.

On Thursday, Aghazadeh appeared to signal that his country was no longer prepared even to discuss the issue with the IAEA.

Investigating such allegations "is outside the domain of the agency," he said after meeting with ElBaradei. Any further queries on the issue "will be dealt with in another way," he said, without going into detail.

Britain, one of those suspicious of Iran's nuclear activities, was critical.

"We are concerned by reports that Iran is refusing to cooperate with the IAEA on allegations over nuclear weapons," the British Foreign Office said in a statement. "The IAEA has raised serious concerns over Iran's activities with a possible military dimension. If Iran is serious about restoring international confidence in its intentions, it must address these issues."

The IAEA asked in vain for explanations from Iran, and its last report in May said Iran might be withholding information on whether it tried to make nuclear arms. Reflecting ElBaradei's frustration, the report used language described by one senior U.N. official as unique in its direct criticism of Tehran.

Aghazadeh's comments Thursday appeared to jibe with those of diplomats familiar with the probe who told The Associated Press that the IAEA had run into a dead end.

A senior diplomat on Thursday attributed Tehran's intransigence in part to anger over a multimedia presentation by IAEA Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen to the agency's 35 board members based on intelligence about the alleged weapons work. The diplomat, like others, agreed to discuss the matter only if not quoted by name because his information was confidential.

Tehran dismisses the suspicions of the U.S. and allies, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday again vowed that his country would not "retreat one iota" from pursuing uranium enrichment.

On Saturday, a U.S. diplomat had participated in talks with Iran held in Geneva, raising expectations that a compromise might be reached under which Iran would agree to temporarily stop expansion of enrichment activities. In exchange, the six world powers — the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China — would hold off on adopting new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

But participants at Geneva said Iranian negotiators skirted the freeze issue despite the presence of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday accused Iran of not being serious at the Geneva talks. She warned that all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline for Iran to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or else be hit with a fourth set of U.N. penalties.

Aghazadeh, who is also head of Iran's atomic agency, played down the international complaints, but he also evaded a direct answer on whether Tehran would give any ground on an enrichment freeze.

"Both sides are carefully studying the concerns and expectations of both sides," he told reporters.

[dude1394]

Those euros can sure negotiate.

[wmbwinn]

Negotiation time is coming to a close. Iran is refusing further cooperation...

Planes... Bombs... Marines... Cruise Missiles...

These are the coming solutions...

What will the Dems say when Obama launches the Iran War and increases War in Afghanistan (he has already stated he intends to put more forces in Afghanistan) And keeps us in Iraq?

Maybe Bush launches the Iran War and Obama complains but then picks up right where Bush leaves and continues the same strategy?

[kappasigma]

why not go to war with Iran?

It is NOT an American war. It is not our fight, but we will pay the price. Our friends will die, our economy will suffer and retaliation from others would make us scared to leave our homes.

Why is this not our war, well, basically because it is not our agenda. It is the agenda of the neoconservatives who's sole motive is the building up of a stronger Israeli state.

Who are the neoconservatives?
Mainly first generation americans of hollicaust surviving parents. They grew up in the sixties and rode to power with regan.

They happen to be a large portion of Bush's cabinet and adivisors, write famous speaches for him, think "axis of evil" and are part of one the largest lobbiest organization in America. If you're in politics and don't support them, you are DONE!


I'm sure some of my posts offend people, however, I'm AMERICAN & only believe in AMERICAN causes.

If you're American, you might want to know who benefits from our actions, then decide for yourself if it truely helps us or makes us poorer and more devastated than before. We have enough domestic issues that if corrected would benefit us greatly.

A little more research and you might find out that the reason a bunch of guys decided to fly planes into buildings to make a point. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they hate us because we have freedom. If this was the case, over half of the world would be attacked. 9/11 was exactly what the neocons needed to make us think this is our war. Afghanistan = our war.
Iraq = Israeli war.

Wake up and realize we are being manipulated and don't know it. We are losing families, money and are not doing much to have a safer future, since our continued actions will cause more retaliation.




http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...ith_iran_.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html


From Joe Klien:
The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked--still smacks--of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.

[wmbwinn]

Kappa:
What will your angle be when Obama fights a war with Iran? Accuse him of being a supporter of Judaism?

Got to love conspiracy theories. Can't prove them. Can't disprove them. To say the 911 attack was orchestrated by America or by Israeli supporters is a huge conspiracy theory.

[MavsX]

if something happens with Iran, i just hope they nuke that sh*t. I'm sick of this fight in backyards and houses. Let's pretend we are civilians then pull out the AK47. That whole country needs to be nuked...now.

[jefelump]

Here's an interesting story... Iran preparing for a nuclear strike against the US???

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/ira...29/117217.html

If there's anything at all to this story, then an attack on Iran is a whole lot more than "protecting Israel"...

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by kappasigma

Afghanistan = our war.
Iraq = Israeli war.

America = ours and Britain's war. Darned Frenchies.

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Here's an interesting story... Iran preparing for a nuclear strike against the US???

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/ira...29/117217.html

If there's anything at all to this story, then an attack on Iran is a whole lot more than "protecting Israel"...

that guy is nuts. (the guy in the article)

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by MavsX

that guy is nuts. (the guy in the article)

I hope you're right, but I suppose we'll see.....

[kappasigma]

HAHAHA!!!!

Wow that's funny. The author of that article is Ken Timmerman, aka the yellow journalist of the year every year. He writes articles that are so far off base that are intended to scare people. He did the same thing with Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

oh, and he's also the head of the organization that is trying to replace the government in Iran, in which case he'd become a highly ranked member of the new government.

ya, fair and un-bias journalism at its best!

this article is practically pure fiction.....then again, so is just about all of the news that gets reported.

[wmbwinn]

U.S. Approves Bunker-Buster Bombs to Israel

Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:03 PM

Article Font Size



The Pentagon has approved the sale of 1,000 bunker-busting smart bombs to Israel, a deal worth $77 million.


According to Haaretz.com, the bombs could be used to penetrate heavily fortified targets, such as suspected nuclear sites located in underground bunkers.


The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Pentagon department responsible for evaluating foreign military sales, notified Congress over the weekend about the pending sale. Congress now has 30 days to voice its objections.


If the sale goes through, Israel will get other weapons as well. A DSCA news release states that "Israel has requested a possible sale of 1,000 GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB1), 150 BRU-61/A SDB1 Mounting Carriages, 30 Guided Test Vehicles, 2 BRU-61/A SDB Instrumented Carriages, 7 Jettison Test Vehicles, 1 Separation Test Vehicle, 2 Reliability and Assessment Vehicles, 12 Common Munitions BIT and Reprogramming Equipment with Test Equipment and Adapters, 3 SDB1 Weapons Simulators, and 2 Load Crew Trainers. Also includes containers, flight test integration, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $77 million.


"Israel’s strategic position makes it vital to the United States’ interests throughout the Middle East. Our policy has been to promote Middle East peace, support Israel’s commitment to peace with other regional Arab countries, enhance regional stability and promote Israeli readiness and self-sufficiency. It is vital to the U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and mainproposed sale is consistent with those objectives."


The smart bomb, the GBU-28, is a laser-guided weapon whose warhead can burrow through more than 20 feet of concrete and up to 100 feet of dirt, according to AFP.


The sale comes despite concerns that the U.S. had been reluctant to sell the advanced weaponry out of fears that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran is locked in a confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, which it claims is for civilian use only. The West suspects the program is aimed at developing weapons.


Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said last month that Israel would keep all options open regarding its stance toward Iran's nuclear capability.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/isr...mo_code=6A36-1

Hmmm... wonder why the US is giving Israel 1000 bunker busters...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Here's an interesting story... Iran preparing for a nuclear strike against the US???

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/ira...29/117217.html

If there's anything at all to this story, then an attack on Iran is a whole lot more than "protecting Israel"...

It is a legit scenerio. Joel Rosenberg wrote about it in a book (I think Dead Heat).

He also wrote about a terrorist plane plot just before 9/11.

I know the military has war gamed against it.

There is much more truth to the article than most would believe.


Problem is -- there is nothing we can do about it. A large enough EMP wave takes out computer chips....ie cars, trucks, computers the regulate electricity, etc.

No way to get product to market. No way to save the food in refrigerator (no electricity). No way to drive anywhere.

It would take 2 weeks to 6 months to restore power, and by that time riots would have basically destroyed most major cities. People in the country wouldn't be safe either, because people would justify theft to save their family, while killing others.

No, the scenario is legit -- whether it will happen or not remains to be seen.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Yet, what is Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House doing?

Some 220 members, a majority, have endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362. This virtual war resolution "demands" that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.

The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.

Last week, Mossad's chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel's armed forces.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27521

______________________________----

If Buchanon is correct, even Pelosi is pushing events forward that might result in war with Iran...

Ron Paul once put forward a resolution that would've simply required the congress to honour the constitution and not allow the president to go to war with Iran without a official declaration of war by congress. It was only a short time after the Democrats took over congress. Nancy Pelosi battled the resolution and explained in the Washington Post that the people from AIPAC (the Israel lobby) told her to do so.

Democrats are not a tiny little bit better than Republicans on these issues. It's a one party system. There was a saying that one of my favorite historians mentioned in a speech, it went like this: The Democrats are the stupid party, the Republicans are the evil party and once in a while the two parties come together to do something that is both stupid and evil and then they call it bipartisanship. - Nowadays both Republicans and Democrats are equally evil and stupid and it doesn't matter which piece of the shitpie you eat.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Arne

Ron Paul once put forward a resolution that would've simply required the congress to honour the constitution and not allow the president to go to war with Iran without a official declaration of war by congress. It was only a short time after the Democrats took over congress. Nancy Pelosi battled the resolution and explained in the Washington Post that the people from AIPAC (the Israel lobby) told her to do so.

Democrats are not a tiny little bit better than Republicans on these issues. It's a one party system. There was a saying that one of my favorite historians mentioned in a speech, it went like this: The Democrats are the stupid party, the Republicans are the evil party and once in a while the two parties come together to do something that is both stupid and evil and then they call it bipartisanship. - Nowadays both Republicans and Democrats are equally evil and stupid and it doesn't matter which piece of the shitpie you eat.

this reminds me of one of my favorite songs. If I can remember, it has a line in it something like, "I'm gonna go eat some worms."

[Arne]

By the way, Bill Richardson, is fully behind the Clinton sanctions that killed hundreds of thousand Iraqi children, as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1YkQs5nXQ