Post #243,802
2/7/06 9:40:35 PM
|
Scott Ritter says Iran war already set
[link|http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm|IInformation Clearing House] The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.
"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.
Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.
He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."
"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said. Interesting stuff, but I think Ritters going to far. He is claiming that the administration may nuke Iran. I can understand the reasoning, since an invasion of Iran would be a major problem due to the manpower shortage in the army. But even a pocket nuke against Iran's nuclear weapon facility would be a terribly risky operation, both physically and politically. I think much more likely is that the US will being a conventional bombing campaign. Iran will retaliate by arming insurgents in Iraq. The border between Iraq and Iran will become a undeclared war zone as both sides send more and larger parties across the border. Eventually we will either be dragged into a ground war with Iran or abandon Iraq. Jay
|
Post #243,829
2/8/06 4:45:54 AM
|
Re: Scott Ritter says Iran war already set
I have few questions?
Can USA afford to go to war with IRAN.
And I dont mean millitary wise (of course military wise they can), but I mean politically, after, the IRAQ war, can any US president ask for another war.
I think politically, USA have few more years, probably something around 10 to enter another, not so justified war
"Bush doesn't believe their intention"... I don't think what Bush think is good enough reason ... no now, it was good enough for a FIRST war.
The problem also, is, USA may need to go to war against Syria, and Egypt, later in life. Moral here is, as long as there is an israel and no real palestine, USA will have to fight many wars in the Middle East, and after they finish Egypt they may need to go back to iraq or iran, again, who knows ...
I am not sure of Iran intentions, I am sure the guys there, know they cant afford a real war versus USA.
First theory: this could all be an act, for some reason or another, ... in this case I would be fearing what USA want (sorry for the conpiracy theory, but when a country like Iran pick on USA, something is fishy, USA can crush iran overnight)
Second theory: no deals, iran want more power, iran know usa can't afford a war against it, at least for several more years, during which it can aquire the power it needs
USA can ignore Syria, for now and focus its pressure on Iran, which it seems, is what they are doing, too bad for lebanon, they were counting, on fininshing off syria, ..... this might have to wait for a while
By ignoring syria, and focusing on iran, you are ignoring egypt, and believe it or not, egypt is israel biggest threat, and the whole reason for those wars in the middle east, is to create a environment, where an israel can grow
Ultimatly, I think USA is in a tuff situation, the only way out, the good way out, is, declare a palestine, support real democracies in syria and egypt, .... let iran get the little more power it wants, ... balance the powers by supporting iraq, syria and egypt, i.e. put egypt vs iran, not israel vs iran, israel vs iran, means israel vs iran + iraq + syrian + egypt, which started this whole mess in the first place
even though i am a muslim, i dont really care for jerusalem, but if giving jerusalem to the muslims, will help stabilize, this area, then israel and usa, please swallow ur pride, be the bigger guy, and give jerusalem to the muslims!
I dont care for jerusalem, because i dont believe that any land is worth that much pain. beliefs, principals, sure .... but land !!! Anyway ....
this i think the only scenario where israel can be left alone, in peace ....
israel should not be too ambitious, because its obvious, USA cannot afford so many wars! Iran is proving it
|
Post #243,836
2/8/06 8:29:10 AM
|
well I dont think Israel is in that much danger from egypt
Israel has most to fear from its cousins the Arabs. Althought there are many arabs in Egypt they are not a majority. The problem wont be resolved until so many Jews are killed in a horrific way that no one will speak out when the few left leave only Jews alive in the realestate deal made by god in the old testament.
Persians will be stupid to push too much as it is Bush's plan to have them encircle then wipe out the house of saud and retake Mecca and Medina. Bush probably doesnt know thats his plan but that is what is going to happen.
With that in place there will be too much turmoil to get the Palestinians a state. They need one and now is a very brief window to where they could actually get one. Not everything but autonomy, sovreignty and the Palestinian people are smart hardworking and adapt very well. They are the Jews of the Arab world so have learned to thrive under adversary. Unfortunately the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #243,846
2/8/06 10:11:35 AM
|
Too political, but ICLRPD
Unfortunately the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance. jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #243,855
2/8/06 10:53:33 AM
|
old saying by kissinger? somebody, been around a while
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #243,848
2/8/06 10:18:49 AM
|
Political concerns won't stop them
Can USA afford to go to war with IRAN.
And I dont mean millitary wise (of course military wise they can), but I mean politically, after, the IRAQ war, can any US president ask for another war. I'm not sure militarily or politically we can. But I don't think political concerns will stop the current administration. The only thing that is liable to stop them is the realization that we don't have the manpower in the army to do so. By ignoring syria, and focusing on iran, you are ignoring egypt, and believe it or not, egypt is israel biggest threat, and the whole reason for those wars in the middle east, is to create a environment, where an israel can grow I would agree that Isreal is a concern for some people in the administration. But not all, or even a majority. I think the reasons for the war have more to due with oil and extending the US's military presence in the region. I am not sure of Iran intentions, I am sure the guys there, know they cant afford a real war versus USA.
First theory: this could all be an act, for some reason or another, ... in this case I would be fearing what USA want (sorry for the conpiracy theory, but when a country like Iran pick on USA, something is fishy, USA can crush iran overnight) It is a bit of an act, in that the current Iranian government is using warmongering and fear of the US as a way to secure their posistion. But Iran also has a very legitimate and serious security issue, one I think they think they can solve only with nuclear weapons. Jay
|
Post #243,856
2/8/06 10:55:43 AM
|
the office in the pentagon that supplied the war plans
under cheney auspices all have ties to the espionage case where franklin plead guilty to spying for Israel.The pnac met with them weekly.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #243,847
2/8/06 10:17:01 AM
|
Deja Vue?
[link|http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-23-05/discussion.cgi.51.html|APFN]: Ritter: Iran Attack On for June
Kurt Nimmo
February 21, 2005
[link|http://www.uruknet.info/?p=9870&hd=0&size=1&l=x|http://www.uruknet.i...0&hd=0&size=1&l=x]
\ufffd[Scott] Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005,\ufffd writes Mark Jensen on the United for Peace of Pierce County web site ( [link|http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2/|http://www.ufppc.org...tent/view/2295/2/] ). \ufffdIts purported goal is the destruction of Iran\ufffds alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million\ufffda possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.\ufffd Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq and vehement critic of Bush and the Strausscons, made the comment during a talk in Olympia, Washington, last week. Ritter also said the so-called election last month in Iraq was a heavily stage managed affair.
Ritter did not provide details, or did he reveal his source for this information, saying only that \ufffdan official involved in the [election] manipulation was the source\ufffd and details would be soon \ufffdreported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine,\ufffd a likely reference to Seymour Hersh.
[...] Slow news cycle? Cheers, Scott. (Not that Scott, either.)
|
Post #243,852
2/8/06 10:35:00 AM
|
Der Katzenritter? Wouldn't that be almost as bad as herding?
|
Post #243,854
2/8/06 10:35:59 AM
|
:-D
|
Post #243,913
2/8/06 7:56:52 PM
|
Brinksmanship...
...I'm sure the administration very much loves having the word put out that we are crazy enough to plan an attack. Now if they can get the Iranians to believe it. Of course, if they don't believe we will do it, this might make us actually have to go and do it.
|
Post #243,930
2/8/06 9:24:05 PM
|
That is what I'm afraid of
...I'm sure the administration very much loves having the word put out that we are crazy enough to plan an attack. Now if they can get the Iranians to believe it. Of course, if they don't believe we will do it, this might make us actually have to go and do it. I'm very afraid that the Bush administration is trying to play such a game here, pushing it to the edge in the belief that Iran will back down. But I'm not sure that Iran will. The lesson of Iraq was that backing down won't get you anything, it's just weakens your country in the face of the invasion that is already set to happen. And there is a good change that the lesson is right. If the US does have plans to invade Iran, they are probably already set and Iran backing down now won't slow the invasion at all. Jay
|
