[Changleen]

Take note s. Scott Ritter - former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, (remember him?) is telling you how it is:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

The US war with Iran has already begun

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence gathering phase.
This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.

It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.

But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.

By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Oh, you mean Scott Ritter the child molester.... yeah.. we should be listening to him.

 

[valve bouncer]

So what's the body count now in Iraq? 1700? Expect 10 times that if they go into Iran. Even Bush couldn't be that stupid, right? Right?????.....Oh sh*t.....................

 

[Changleen]

Oh, you mean Scott Ritter the child molester.... yeah.. we should be listening to him.

Ah, the traditional republican response - the sidestep, in this case varient 12; 'shoot the messenger'. You really are a tool.

From a website commenting on the allegations about Ritter, which are frankly so beside the point that even you N8, should be ashamed of yourself:

Anybody who doesn't believe that Ritter was specifically targeted on account of his political activities needs to seek help: that sort of naivete can be terminal, and the patient probably shouldn't be trusted to cross the street unattended.

So are you suggesting that everything he has written is a lie, because of a manufactured charge against him?

 

[valve bouncer]

Ah, the traditional republican response - the sidestep, in this case varient 12; 'shoot the messenger'. You really are a tool.

From a website commenting on the allegations about Ritter, which are frankly so beside the point that even you N8, should be ashamed of yourself:



So are you suggesting that everything he has written is a lie, because of a manufactured charge against him?

I don't even know why you bother responding to N8, he's the navel lint of this forum....a semi interesting curiousity not to be really concerned with.

 

[Changleen]

I don't even know why you bother responding to N8, he's the navel lint of this forum....a semi interesting curiousity not to be really concerned with.

I just like the smackdown. You can always tell when you've got him as his response (if there is one) will have at least one in it.

 

[valve bouncer]

I just like the smackdown. You can always tell when you've got him as his response (if there is one) will have at least one in it.

Oh I see, that's his "I've been lobotomised" smilie.

 

[ioscope]

Who cares
I give up on caring
I am disillusioned

 

[Changleen]

Who cares
I give up on caring
I am disillusioned

It's good to give a ****. Don't give up, you'll turn into N8.

 

[N8 v2.0]

This ain't the first notice from Scott "Where are the kids" Ritter... he's been gumming this tired ass line since at least Feb.

 

[MikeD]

This ain't the first notice from Scott "Where are the kids" Ritter... he's been gumming this tired ass line since at least Feb.

Wow, dude, you really ARE in step with the admininstration. That's the first line of their defense these days...call it 'old news,' as if that answers a criticism.

They know if they blow it off and treat it as nothing, it falls off the public's interest list. They are seriously geniuses at playground politics...the 'I'm rubber-and-you're glue' routine, and the ability to destroy someone in the public eye with the use of well-placed and easily parroted epithets.

That's in contrast to their opposition, who can't do anything but squawk in outrage as they're ass-reamed by the administration time after time after time. Can't even offer us a coherent vision of anything better.

I LOVE politics.

MD

 

[ridetoofast]

it never ceases to amaze me how supremely arrogant bouncer and changleen are...

 

[Toshi]

it never ceases to amaze me how supremely arrogant bouncer and changleen are...

there are only a limited number of attitudes you can adopt when you're right and the opposition is blinded by their own stupidity.

 

[ridetoofast]

im not trying to pick a fight with you but that has a taint of arrogance to it as well...

that being said why are their replies frequented with insults and snide remarks rather than adhering the logic of the arguement (navel lint, frother, etc...)

 

[Toshi]

im not trying to pick a fight with you but that has a taint of arrogance to it as well...

that being said why are their replies frequented with insults and snide remarks rather than adhering the logic of the arguement (navel lint, frother, etc...)

congratulations, you missed the point of my posting. and i don't think their antics hold a candle to n8's party line drivel.

 

[Changleen]

im not trying to pick a fight with you but that has a taint of arrogance to it as well...

that being said why are their replies frequented with insults and snide remarks rather than adhering the logic of the arguement (navel lint, frother, etc...)

If you argue with me based on an actual thought out response to what I've posted (assuming you disagree with it) I will respond without insults. If, as certain people tend to do, sidestep, blur, obfuscate, spin or otherwise ignore the actual point being raised to suit/support their own agenda, then I don't have much patience for that. Shows a lack of brains, and inter-ma-lectual testicles.

N8's goal here is to dicredit the writer of the article because he is informing the world in general that once more Bush is involved in illegal premeditated, pre-emptive aggresion against yet another soverign country. N8 has a problem questioning authority, and he's a republican. For some reason he'd rather not know, and would rather you didn't know the **** that is being perpitrated in America's name.

 

[jaydee]

Oh well, there are two extremes to every political position, and you can find Changleen on one side, N8 on the other, and in between are thinking people who realize that no issue is as simple as Changleen and N8 think it is.

It's not easy to insult both Changleen and N8 in one sentence.

 

[Changleen]

Oh well, there are two extremes to every political position, and you can find Changleen on one side, N8 on the other, and in between are thinking people who realize that no issue is as simple as Changleen and N8 think it is.

It's not easy to insult both Changleen and N8 in one sentence.

Especially with any accuracy.

 

[Silver]

Changleen and N8 are not even close to being on the same page of any book.

N8 posts stupid ****, and almost never replies. Changleen might post some stuff that I think is stupid ****, but he sticks around and debates it at least. I'd say Changleen and $tinkle (when he graces us with his presence ) are opposites.

N8's just a retard without a radio show and an oxycontin addiction...

 

[Changleen]

Changleen and N8 are not even close to being on the same page of any book.

N8 posts stupid ****, and almost never replies. Changleen might post some stuff that I think is stupid ****, but he sticks around and debates it at least. I'd say Changleen and $tinkle (when he graces us with his presence ) are opposites.

N8's just a retard without a radio show and an oxycontin addiction...

Ahh, Thanks Silver...


...I think...

 

[Changleen]

Can we get back to the point of the thread now? Anyone read/seen anything that would counter anything that has been said in the article?

 

[punkassean]

there are only a limited number of attitudes you can adopt when you're right and the opposition is blinded by their own stupidity.

 

[johnnylovegod]

Anyone read/seen anything that would counter anything that has been said in the article?

Not really, but there is an article in the latest edition of FP (Foreign Policy May/June 2005) on page 18 titled:Iran by Christopher De Bellaigue. He writes on Iran for the Economist and has been living in country for four years. It's not exactly an academic piece but very insightful none the less.

I'd like to stay around here and discuss these types of topics more so than I do. Unfortunately my time is a little limited as I run my own politics forum, run my own MTB forum and spend waaaaay too much time on Farkin, Australia's largest MTB forum. Oh yeah, I also ride and study too

I am always very impressed by the amount of political and social interest I find on MTB sites. Very encouraging.

 

[Changleen]

Not really, but there is an article in the latest edition of FP (Foreign Policy May/June 2005) on page 18 titled:Iran by Christopher De Bellaigue. He writes on Iran for the Economist and has been living in country for four years. It's not exactly an academic piece but very insightful none the less.

I'd like to stay around here and discuss these types of topics more so than I do. Unfortunately my time is a little limited as I run my own politics forum, run my own MTB forum and spend waaaaay too much time on Farkin, Australia's largest MTB forum. Oh yeah, I also ride and study too

I am always very impressed by the amount of political and social interest I find on MTB sites. Very encouraging.

Great article. It's on their website. More like a background primer. Good website too.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=220

 

[valve bouncer]

it never ceases to amaze me how supremely arrogant bouncer and changleen are...

Bwahahahaha.....want a tissue ya big sook. N8 can take it. Obviously you're a little more emotionally fragile so I guess it's hot chocolate and a bed-time story for you.

 

[Silver]

Hitchens has an interesting article in the new Vanity Fair as well.

 

[johnnylovegod]

Excellent, will definately check that out. I'm just about to fly from Sydney to Sweden via seoul and Frankfurt, I will have lots of reading time already picked up copies of: Foreign Affairs, Time, The diplomat (Aust) and Australian Rationalist. Hardest part is not reading them before the flight!

I think that the US would be foolish to invade Iran in the near future. Firstly being that they are holding elections as we type and secondly that I would guess that there is less love for the US on the "street" in Iran as there is/was in Iraq. Also the Iranians haven't had the crippling sanctions that Iraq did for twelve years which helped decimate the Iraqi army. I would also see a stronger divide across the atlantic from both old and new Europe.

But hey, who the hell knows WHAT is going on inside the heads of the Republican Christian deluded right.

Disclaimer: the fundementalist left are equally deluded IMO, so please don't label me left as it would be quite innacurrate.....like my spelling!

*Edit. After re-reading the article another issue stikes me. If the forward planning bases for an attack on Iran are in place in Iraq, this would risk Iran attacking Iraq in "justified" self defence from a foreign aggressor. But how does this work, the country that is being aggressive is basing itself in another country altogether so the innocent are attacked because of an occupying power.

Then in comes the Iraqi government. Would they allow a US led invasion of their neighbour, who now can openly be courted (keeping in mind the Shi'ite dominence in Iraq), thereby risking their own security (if that's what you could call the situation in Iraq......secure???)? For the US to keep Iran from striking their bases in Iraq, which they definately have the capacity to do, there would have to be a MASSIVE assault from Azerbijan AND Uzbekistan.

Keeping this in mind it is interesting to see the events that are recently unfolding in Uzbekistan following the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and the other happenings in places like Georgia with Sakashvilli etc.

This is something that I have previously posted and discussed on my own forum:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-blo … 11086.html

US blocks massacre inquiry to save military base
By Jeffrey Smith and Glenn Kessler
June 15, 2005

US and Russian officials have helped block a new demand for an international inquiry into the Uzbek Government's shooting of hundreds of protesters last month, with Washington saying it is worried about Uzbekistan cutting off its access to a military air base.

British and other European officials had pushed to include language calling for an independent investigation in an official statement issued by defence ministers of NATO countries and Russia after a day-long meeting on Thursday in Brussels.

But the joint communiqué merely stated that "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan", had been discussed.

The outcome obscured an internal US dispute over whether NATO ministers should raise the May 13 shootings in Andijon at the risk of provoking Uzbekistan to cut off US access to a military air base on its territory.

The communiqué's wording was worked out after what several officials called a vigorous debate in Brussels between US military officials, who emphasised the importance of the base, and others, including US State Department representatives at NATO headquarters, who favoured language calling for a transparent, independent and international inquiry into the killings of Uzbek civilians by police and soldiers.

Spokesmen for the State and Defence departments, asked to comment on the debate, said Washington had one policy.

At the ministerial meeting, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, verbally endorsed previous statements about the incident by the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the President, George Bush. But other officials said the disagreements between Defence and State Department officials reflected a continuing rift in the Administration over how to handle a breach of human rights that has come under sharp criticism by the State Department, the European Union and some US legislators.

Dr Rice has said publicly that international involvement in an inquiry into the killings in Andijon is essential, and she has declined an Uzbek invitation for Washington to send observers to a commission of inquiry controlled by the Uzbek parliament.

Three US officials said the Uzbek President, Islam Karimov, retaliated against her criticism by recently curtailing some US military flights into the air base at Karshi-Khanabad, in the country's south-east, which the US military considers a vital logistics hub in the "war on terrorism".

Four sources familiar with a private discussion on Thursday among the ministers said the Pentagon's stance on the language of the Brussels communiqué placed it in roughly the same camp as the Russians, but for different reasons. The Russian position, as spelled out by the Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, was that the incident, while alarming, was "inspired" by events in Afghanistan.

Mr Ivanov said it was NATO's responsibility to control terrorism more aggressively, but added that "we do not want to … put any extraordinary pressure on anybody" about the shootings.

The Defence Department position, articulated before the meeting began by Mira Ricardel, the acting assistant secretary for international security policy, was that "the NATO-Russia communiqué may not be the most appropriate place" to demand an inquiry into the massacre.

The Washington Post



My comment: In the war against terror there is no right or wrong. Only friends and enemies........just ask Dr. Abdul Qudeer Khan!

I would also hazard a guess that the upgrading of bases north of the middle east could be planning for the defence of the Middle East energy reserves. Many have argued that America's intentions in the ME are not so much connected to Terrorism or democracy/liberation but an effort to retain control over the energy that fuels global production. It is obvious that China are in the ascention phase to becoming a great power which directly threatens America's influence in the region. This they are attempting to a large degree through the means of production and their own energy sources (coal, gas and little oil) are far from enough to cover their production needs.

Therefore the bases may NOT be in aid of invading Iran but as of a contingency/pre-planning/militaristic imperialism to control the world's most important energy sources.

 

[Silver]

Take a gander at this book sometime:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805077979/qid=1119420588/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-1710469-6346566?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Changleen]

I would also hazard a guess that the upgrading of bases north of the middle east could be planning for the defence of the Middle East energy reserves. Many have argued that America's intentions in the ME are not so much connected to Terrorism or democracy/liberation but an effort to retain control over the energy that fuels global production. It is obvious that China are in the ascention phase to becoming a great power which directly threatens America's influence in the region. This they are attempting to a large degree through the means of production and their own energy sources (coal, gas and little oil) are far from enough to cover their production needs.

Therefore the bases may NOT be in aid of invading Iran but as of a contingency/pre-planning/militaristic imperialism to control the world's most important energy sources.

China have the largest Oil contract with Iran, the US knows the rate that China is gonna grow in the next couple of decades, and GW just loves America to burn hydrocarbons. Playing 'snatch from China' isn't going to be a good move longterm.

 

[ridetoofast]

Bwahahahaha.....want a tissue ya big sook. N8 can take it. Obviously you're a little more emotionally fragile so I guess it's hot chocolate and a bed-time story for you.

ohhh..you've so baited me now...what AM i going to do???

 

[Changleen]

ohhh..you've so baited me now...what AM i going to do???

Debate politics? In a boxing ring you box, on a racetrack you race. This is the PD forum. VB's callin' you out.

 

[valve bouncer]

Debate politics? In a boxing ring you box, on a racetrack you race. This is the PD forum. VB's callin' you out.

There ya go. Everyone's so afraid of getting their feelings hurt. Bunch of sheilas around here.

 

[steelewheels]

China have the largest Oil contract with Iran, the US knows the rate that China is gonna grow in the next couple of decades, and GW just loves America to burn hydrocarbons. Playing 'snatch from China' isn't going to be a good move longterm.

China has bought up most of the Canadian oil sands... There is more oil in them then have been burnt to date.

 

[clancy98]

toshi, you are an entertaining sidekick!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Ah, the traditional republican response - the sidestep, in this case varient 12; 'shoot the messenger'. You really are a tool.

From a website commenting on the allegations about Ritter, which are frankly so beside the point that even you N8, should be ashamed of yourself:



So are you suggesting that everything he has written is a lie, because of a manufactured charge against him?

Meet Scott Ritter:

A (1) former U.N. Weapons inspector, (2) one-time arrestee for soliciting an underage girl on the Internet, and (3) recipient of $400,000 (from an associate of Saddam Hussein) used to finance an anti-Iraq war film, recently stated at an anti-war "talk" that the Bush Administration has authorized plans to "bomb" Iran in June 2005.

Additionally, Ritter put forth that the United States "cooked" the election results in Iraq last month to lessen the percentage gained by the Islamic-leaning United Iraqi Alliance.

So what are the sources of Ritter's information? Like any respectable conspiracy theorist, he relies on shadowy "anonymous" government officials who are "involved in the processes." In all likelihood, this forthcoming piece by an unnamed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist will substantiate Ritter's claims with additional mysterious government officials, which provides provocative headlines, but contributes little substantive information.

 

[Changleen]

So what are the sources of Ritter's information? Like any respectable conspiracy theorist, he relies on shadowy "anonymous" government officials who are "involved in the processes."

N8, you 'tard, every decent Journalist uses anonymous sources. Your rightwing crap factory, geopoliticalreview.com has obviously not ever left the state it grew up in to play in the real world.

You still haven't even made an attempt to actually deal with any of the information presented. Nice going.

 

[N8 v2.0]

N8, you 'tard, every decent Journalist uses anonymous sources. Your rightwing crap factory, geopoliticalreview.com has obviously not ever left the state it grew up in to play in the real world.

You still haven't even made an attempt to actually deal with any of the information presented. Nice going.

anonymous = made up

In this case.

 

[Changleen]

anonymous = made up

In this case.

Proof of any type what so ever?

 

[$tinkle]

N8, you 'tard, every decent Journalist uses anonymous sources.

a little dity on journalism ethics that challenges your assertion

Proof of any type what so ever?

don't go asking to n8 to back anything up before you tick off your long, long, long laundry list of unresolved demands in kind that DT & I (among many others) have made.

 

[Changleen]

a little dity on journalism ethics that challenges your assertion

And back in the real world... Have you ever read a broadsheet? Jeeze. This is just post Newsweek BS hysteria. Google News keeps news stories from the last 30 days. A quick search for 'anonymous source' gives "about 2,990" results. You know anonymous sources are the backbone of serious investigative journalism. Have been forever. Don't be dumb.

don't go asking to n8 to back anything up before you tick off your long, long, long laundry list of unresolved demands in kind that DT & I (among many others) have made.

Hey, I respond to the ones which aren't plain stupid or wildly off topic. N8 can't even bring himself to address the issues put forth. All he's got is 'shoot the messenger'. Lame.

If you're looking for something to do, try to find some evidence to contradict the facts of the actual article I posted.