US will invade Iran in '06

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- ECK can and I'm sure will answer for himself.

Actually, there's not much to add to what you've said. You have an excellent understanding of this issue. The diversity of your reading/sources is excellent, too.

So, in short, what he said..

Just a few thoughts of my own, though...

Sminkeypinkey:
Interesting.
March is when Iran gets out of $US and into Euros.
This is, IMO, not unconnected at all.

Forget WMD, this issue is the key to it all. When OPEC goes with the Euro, the US economy will sink faster and more violently than the Titanic. I encourgage everyone to study this issue.


As for who is pushing for war with Iran.. Its clearly the passion of Washington's NeoCons, their GOP congressional lackeys, DLC lackeys, the Christian right (strangely) and their friends in Israel (Likuds). No one else is interested.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
My view is that Europe has genuine concerns that this does not escalate to a new ME war (and we do indeed see that as a real possibility; this nonsensical idea some hold of air strikes being the end of it - even if they could 'get' everything - is wishful thinking in the extreme).

You have failed to show thta this is everyone's concern.
That's all I asked. You're saying it's just Europe that has that concern. But THEY'RE the ones who are moving things foward.

'We' are trying to engage Iran through the various mechanisms of the various treaties concerned and were more than happy that Iran was prepared to - and did - go beyond treaty obligations.
'Others' sadly were not, so, none of that did anything to stop the increasing tensions, rancour, criticism, veiled threats and hence the on-going 'crisis'.

What are you talking about?

It is that that Europe has reacted to IMO, but their intent is to give Iran space to diffuse the issue not to crank up the war machine.

You have again failed to show where anyone else is preparing for war.

Iran on the other hand feels it has met its' requirements and is simply the target of illegal (not to mention hypocritical) US pressure (and probably soon actual aggression and attack whether by the US directly or her regional proxy Israel).
I don't think it's too hard to see where they get that idea from.

Are you serious? Then why did BRITIAN, FRANCE, AND GERMANY with the support of CHINA, INDIA, AND RUSSIA report Iran!?
If this was just illegal US pressure they would have ignored it and went about their business.
Also there is absolutely no more evidence that Isreal or US is about to strike than China or Russia about to strike.

Nor how unhelpful it is in trying to resolve this issue.

So is the German chancellors' comparing Iran with the rise of the Nazis helping?

Right on cue, helpful as ever, Bush and co. are at it again today -

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US hoped Iran would heed the "clear message" from the IAEA.

"The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability," Ms Rice said in a statement.

news.bbc.co.uk...

She's agreeing with what the IAEA said...
That's MY point. It's the UN who's saying this, not just the U.S.

Again, if you can show me where it's just the U.S. that's trying to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, then by all means show me.

Europe is not reporting Iran because of ideas about any actual weapons existing (or about to exist) but because we want a firmer inspection regime (which involves going beyond the treaties signed to date - they call them new 'protocols' - but I doubt there'll be too much talk about how they were meeting their previous obligations).

WHOA!
You mean Europe is actually involved!?
All this time you've been trying to convince everyone otherwise, why the change now?

But as for this so-called referral (or reporting) you might also note that nothing is going to happen until march to give some time for further negotiations.

It might also help some of the more pro-war types around here to note that this referral is not a 'UN sanctioned green light' to a new ME war.

YOU and ECK are the only ones suggesting that anyone is trying to start a war. You have provided no evidence at all that the U.S. or anyone else is preparing for war or about to start a war, yet despite all that Europe and other countries are doing you all keep insisting the U.S. is about to go to war. I would have NO problem believing you if you could provide credible evidence the U.S. will do any more than the UN.

It might eventually mean some sort of sanctions get discussed but even that is far from conclusive and their implementation is far from certain either-

Again, if you can provide any evidence that anything more than sanctions will come from this, I'd like to see it.

BTW I don't recall ever saying either Britain or Europe or anybody would not refer the matter on to the UN SC, did I?

No, but you suggested that this is just a U.S. thing depite no evidence at all suggesting Europe is less involved than the U.S.

Thank you ECK.

ThatsJustWeird might care to look at Rumsfled's latest 'not a threat' (to you) comments -

"All options - including the military one - are on the table," he told a German newspaper. "Any government that says Israel has no right to exist is making a statement about its possible behaviour in the future."

news.scotsman.com...

Naturally Rumsfeld (in his efforts to be accurate and not escalate anything unnecessarily, you understand ) insists on claiming that the whole Iranian "government" has said Israel had no right to exist, as opposed to the truth that it was an individual within the Iranian government who actually said it.
Maybe he lied and meant it all in 'a nice way', hmmmm?

As for the new (right wing) German Chancellor?
Pfffhhhhh. Schroder is gone but that does not make the German Parliament 'pro-war' anymore than any other European Parliament is.
(and all across Europe you will now find a democratic vote is key to 'our' participation - even now in the UK.
I imagine you'll be very supportive of that, isn't democracy great, eh?)

Anyhoo, she (Angela Merkel) has just had Rumsfeld there in Germany and twisting her arm.
So what that she is falling in with the likes of him and his loopy theories (I take it you do know he has been at the forefront of several weird geo-political ideas and as for his not so distant ridiculous claims about the 'James Bond' style talibal outposts in the Tora Bora? ).

Merkel is entitled to her personal opinions but she is not the German government nor does she formulate its' policies 'on the hoof' like that.
(Once again I suggest you consider that the US version of government is not the sole one out there.)

The fact remains that by any sane assessment of the situation the people of Germany, no matter what their new Chancellor (who got in to office on a wafer-thin majority) might say, are not going to support a new ME war (which of course you believe is not on the cards, so God knows why so many are devoting so much time to it.........just like happened with Iraq).

Note too that Rumsfeld has a habit of likening anyone he dislikes to Hitler although on this accasion he also likened the Iranian Pres to Lenin too.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Well people obviously the outrageous new 2007 trillion dollar budget that was already taken to congress today it includes a big booster to the Defend Budget again.

While taking away from other areas in our own country to support that outrageous budget.

Carlyle will be salivating at the prospect, the war profiteers are making a killing.

So with such a incredible budget that will boost the Defend I wonder if money in that budget included the necessary funds to launch the attack planned for Iran.

This budget will be worthy of keeping an eye on.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by marg6043]

double post.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
Well people obviously the outrageous new 2007 trillion dollar budget that was already taken to congress today it includes a big booster to the Defend Budget again.

- 100% spot on Marg; not just by their words shall you know them as someone once said.

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday proposed a record $439.3 billion U.S. defense budget for 2007 aimed at fighting both unconventional terrorism and major conflicts with other nations if necessary.

The Pentagon budget represented a 4.8 percent boost over current military spending as Bush seeks cuts in domestic programs. The budget does not include tens of billions of dollars in proposed new financing for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Analysts said the U.S. Congress, under political pressure in an election year, is unlikely to cut Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's budget, which is 16 percent of the administration's $2.77 trillion federal budget.

www.alertnet.org...

sminkeypinkey

Thanks for the link now I can read about it, this should be on a thread all on its own because it sure bring the issue of possible conflicts with Iran and how the US will pay for it.

Thanks

1. The military's budget has gone up since what? The 1940's? So of course this year will be higher than last. It'll be the same next year.

2. That may look like a big number but that's at the most 3 to 4% of our GDP and as the article said only 16 percent of the budget. Not sure what point you're trying to make....




And if the German chancellor doesn't represent Germany, then why do you believe commentary from anti war critics (who are the only one's talking about the US going to war) represent the U.S.?
www.kristv.com...

LONDON Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair says "a signal of strength" is needed from the international community to Iran about its disputed nuclear program.

www.guardian.co.uk...

"We obviously don't rule out any measures at all''

Once again, not one person is saying or preparing anyone to go to war with Iran, but you still haven't provided any evidence or proof at all that the U.S. is taking a harder stance than the rest of the world.

Anyhoo, she (Angela Merkel) has just had Rumsfeld there in Germany and twisting her arm.

You can't possibly be serious....

Naturally Rumsfeld insists on claiming that the whole Iranian "government" has said Israel had no right to exist, as opposed to the truth that it was an individual within the Iranian government who actually said it.

You can't possibly be serious....
It was Ahmadinejad who said that (along with calling the Holocaust a myth)! The Iranian PRESIDENT.
lmao!
Ok, if the Iranian president doesn't speak for their government, then Donald Rumsfeld certainly doesn't speak for our government and you're back at square one trying to prove the US is taking a harder stance. He's just one individual right?

[edit on 6-2-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
And if the German chancellor doesn't represent Germany, then why do you believe commentary from anti war critics (who are the only one's talking about the US going to war) represent the U.S.?

- Bush and Co. have a track record of engineering illegal wars

www.kristv.com...

LONDON Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair says "a signal of strength" is needed from the international community to Iran about its disputed nuclear program.

www.guardian.co.uk...

"We obviously don't rule out any measures at all''

- Interesting the bit from that quotation you preferred to leave out, no?

``We obviously don't rule out any measures at all,'' Blair said when asked about possible sanctions.

Once again, not one person is saying or preparing anyone to go to war with Iran

- Correct, once again the context is perfectly clear, he was talking about a sanctions regime.

, but you still haven't provided any evidence or proof at all that the U.S. is taking a harder stance than the rest of the world.

- Well that really just indicates how this 'game' is being played.

The problem for the Bush crowd is their track record.

You can't possibly be serious....

- Perfectly.
You don't think he just happened to have used similar terms himself do you?
I can only wonder at what the offer/threat was.

......cos it isn't like we haven't seen this administration stand by and allow (or prompt) their western allies to be vilified, threatened, abused, boycotted etc etc when they don't get their way merely because Europe dared to take a different view, right?
(which, once upon a time, would have been the trigger for an utterly aghast 'you cannot be serious'; how times change, right?)

You can't possibly be serious....
It was Ahmadinejad who said that (along with calling the Holocaust a myth)! The Iranian PRESIDENT.

- Again, perfectly serious.
The Iranian President was not outlining the policy of the Iranian government (if you really want to continue this tack I suggest you back it up with some sort of evidence).

Ok, if the Iranian president doesn't speak for their government

- No, that would be ridiculous if you are trying to say he never speaks for the Iranian government.
However, there is a difference when he expresses a personal view (or gets carried away at a mass demo).
You'll know when you see the Iranian government announce a policy and subsequently act upon it.

That does not rule him out of expressing personal opinion though (a series of opinions hardly unique in the ME to him), which is clearly what has happened here.
We know this because the Iranian government announced no such 'policy' and never has announced any such policy.

then Donald Rumsfeld certainly doesn't speak for our government and you're back at square one trying to prove the US is taking a harder stance. He's just one individual right?

- Like I said the big problem here for Bush, Rumsfeld et al is that they have a track record of illegal wars and invading.
Iran does not.

One of the reasons I personally think we will attack Iran in the near future is the fact of their Nuclear power/weapons thing they have going on, just this evening I saw on Yahoo! News that Iran is removing security cameras from their reactor sites. Another reason we protect Isreal, withou our stuff they would have been wiped off the map, the third is if you look at a map you will see that we have troops stationed on one side of Iran in Afghanistan and on the other side in Iraq in aposition to squeeze Iran.
Plus we cut Iran from it's friend Syria and we might start getting some tings done, Or it could back fire and Russia and China might get mad at us who knows except Nostradamus.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Note too that Rumsfeld has a habit of likening anyone he dislikes to Hitler although on this accasion he also likened the Iranian Pres to Lenin too.

Rumsfeld making such a comparison is the pot calling the kettle black. He will go down in history as a butcher. Maybe come judgement day that great book will open and the world shall see who the world's biggest terrorist really was? I'd bet my next kingdom Rummy's in the top ten. At least. Remember, he's got weapons most of those who came before him could not have even have imagined.

That'sjustweird,
you should spend some time looking into the many links provided on this thread. From your statements, I can only guess you didn't bother. The sheer size of this thread, for example, should demonstrate the great amount of interest in this subject. The NeoCons are angling for war. The more it is discussed, the less feasible it becomes. I sense even Bush knows this and its holding him back. The question becomes, who is he now listening to?

I can't believe anyone with a mind (forget in their right mind) could still believe anything these BushCons say anymore. After they lied you into believing Saddam had WMD, and you now KNOW beyond all doubt that they lied (and if you don't, I feel sorry for you) b/c none existed.. (and no, they're not in Syria either, no matter how badly you want to believe it.. ) you still are that naiive?

You need to crawl outta your cave and get on the internet, or go to your public library and do some RESEARCH!



If you do not know that Rumsfeld's Pentagon is drooling over a possible attack on Iran, right now as we type, you are so out of touch its laughable. Check it out. It's no big secret.

[edit on 2/6/06 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

If you do not know that Rumsfeld's Pentagon is drooling over a possible attack on Iran, right now as we type, you are so out of touch its laughable. Check it out. It's no big secret.

[edit on 2/6/06 by EastCoastKid]

The pentagon and the war profiteers like Carlyle group.

I tried to point out that Bush will go into Iran but I was regarded by many Bush supporters with spreading lies.

I don't get it some love the Bushes war but when you bring the fact that is going to be one more they get all mad at you for telling them so.

I think people is getting confused now a days.

Originally posted by Senor_Vicente
One of the reasons I personally think we will attack Iran in the near future is the fact of their Nuclear power/weapons thing they have going on, just this evening I saw on Yahoo! News that Iran is removing security cameras from their reactor sites. Another reason we protect Isreal, withou our stuff they would have been wiped off the map, the third is if you look at a map you will see that we have troops stationed on one side of Iran in Afghanistan and on the other side in Iraq in aposition to squeeze Iran.
Plus we cut Iran from it's friend Syria and we might start getting some tings done, Or it could back fire and Russia and China might get mad at us who knows except Nostradamus.

Iran requested Topol-m Missiles from Russia demanding a speedy delivery.
These are doubtless now in place to counter attacks around their installations.
These missiles are probably the most feared in the world.
Its no secret that like Russia,China has millions at stake with Iran.

Its not just getting hairy.............its bloody dangerous to contemplate.

Originally posted by martin3030
Its not just getting hairy.............its bloody dangerous to contemplate.

Some folks around here are under the impression that attacking Iran would be comparable to attacking Iraq.

Big miscalculation.

Marg brought up the budget. She's right in pointing out that if you look at what Bush is asking for, it speaks volumes.

More importantly to consider is, where in the world would BushCo. come up with the troops eventually needed for such an action? It's simply implausible to consider, and yet they are.

Ohhh it dweeeells much deeper.....It seems almost at the start of the new year...Iran and nukes went on the news overnight...now it's all they talk about.................Iran might nuke Israel as many people believe, the U.S. actually even possibly knows but will let it happen, to bring order out of chaos....that will start the big war....then they can turn this country into total lockdown state...FEMAs already got the camps going don't they.....either way the day any place or city gets nuked will be the MARK in it all.....as we witness the first nuclear atrocity....after such a massive event...even if this country isn't attacked...but lets say Israel still gets nuked....they can now then bring in the national I.D. cards...the draft....and later on the microchips....as the country plummets into shambles....most will be shipped to fight in the war of all wars...while this country becomes a regulated locked down nightmare...while the rest of us who see the truth duck and dodge the NWO and their satanic minions..as we try to find safe haven awaiting the truth or change................

Originally posted by marg6043
The pentagon and the war profiteers like Carlyle group.

- .....and they are far from alone, marg.

In fact it is genuinely shocking that so many people nowadays refuse to (or are incapable of) asking questions about this and seem to just accept it as a fact of life. Maybe it's the education, maybe the current 'new speak' (where all commerce is 'good' and pretty much beyond question) doesn't allow them to even formulate the questions and the supine acceptance is too ingrained.

When one considers the vast tidal wave of money (either through direct government contracts or the usual 'welfare for the wealthy' tax breaks or the huge profits of the oil/gas/energy companies) that has recently been extracted from the majority one can only ask (or ought to be asking); what is happening with all that money?

Of course there will be the usual bleating about the 'necessities of the market(s)' but one can only then wonder, how the hell did anyone ever manage before, hmmmmmm?


[edit on 7-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Geewhiz Diabolic, thats a dark scenario.

I seriously doubt Iran will be the first to strike with nukes. I still dont think they have them yet. Israel and its big bro will be the aggressors, we just need something to justify invasion.

Then we can have police lock-down, a draft (unavoidable), and pretty much chaos.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

When one considers the vast tidal wave of money (either through direct government contracts or the usual 'welfare for the wealthy' tax breaks or the huge profits of the oil/gas/energy companies) that has recently been extracted from the majority one can only ask (or ought to be asking); what is happening with all that money?

You are right in there, before Carlyle investment group who was there to take the billions of dollars of tax payer money and profit from them before assigning them to corporate agencies that get the contracts?

I am no making a profit from my own money, Do you?

How come is only one investment group that happends to have members of ex political officials, ex presidents and ex corporates CEOs. I wonder.

Of course there will be the usual bleating about the 'necessities of the market(s)' but one can only then wonder, how the hell did anyone ever manage before, hmmmmmm?

You know you have countries that their governments rape their nations and their people from money.

Here in the US they call it Investment groups and none bit contracts control by monopolies.

Funny how each nation does the same thing to his people and how they make lucrative deals in which everybody involve benefit and profit but the tax payer people.

Something to think about.

DIABOLIC888
By the way Israel has enough nuclear weapons to take any nation in the middle east.