Bush setting America up for war with Iran

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

www.telegraph.co.uk

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."

(visit the link for the full news article)

It says the pentagon has developed a list of up to 2000 targets in Iran, or a possible operation involving only the nuclear facilities. It seems like tensions have been rising. IMO it's only a matter of time before the US has a conflict with Iran, they've been hyping this too much.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Meanwhile Russia's about to release and send shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran. Yes I can see things heating up, and I don't mean Iran's reactors.

"...Iran state television quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying, “Nuclear fuel for this power plant, inspected and sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is ready.” He added that cooperation between Russia and Iran for the Bushehr power plant is now “moving...”

www.hindu.com...

Second source:
www.iht.com...

Dallas

Just what the world needs... another war started by an aggressive US based on lies.

Just for the record, let's be clear... there is NO evidence that Iran is guilty of any crime.
Understand the Iran Dis-Info Campaign - ATS

Meanwhile, we all know that the US has lied about it's reasons for waging an illegal war in Iraq and is suspected of committing a horrible false flag operation against it's own people in 9/11. Further, the US has a proven track record of false flag operations thought it's history.

When is enough enough?

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Just what the world needs... another war started by an aggressive US based on lies.

Are there any other kind?

Just for the record, let's be clear... there is NO evidence that Iran is guilty of any crime.
Understand the Iran Dis-Info Campaign - ATS

I haven't seen any reasons either. I just hope this attack scenario doesn't play out. Thanks for the link.

Like I said in the other thread about this, Cheney just ain't happy until he can nuke some kids parents to death before he goes home from work.

Gee, why do people hate this peace loving country? All they are doing is fighting for freedom, right? They are only protecting themselfs...

Such a load of frigging bullcrap.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Copernicus]

I am going to go out on a limb here.

I don't think there will be a war with Iran in the next 5 years at least. The more and more I have been thinking about it, the less I actually believe it will happen.

Yes. Rhetoric is at an all time high. Yes. There are shows of flexing muscle on both sides.

But IMHO the stakes are to high here. The international community would not support the destruction of 2000 targets in Iran with tactical nukes with a VERY good reason to do so. The US used up nearly all of its international relations capital when they invaded Iraq.

The only option that the US has is hitting Iran with airstrikes. We have no troops to do it. So that means they would probably use the bunker busting nukes and other really big weapons.

My point is, the second a nuke goes off in the ME, either from the US, Israel or France, then it CERTAINLY means WWIII, and I gotta say I just don;t think we have reached that point yet.

Originally posted by TruthWithin

But IMHO the stakes are to high here. The international community would not support the destruction of 2000 targets in Iran with tactical nukes with a VERY good reason to do so.

All they have to do is start talking about WMD's again, that move has worked before, it would probobly work again IMO.

reply to post by AcesInTheHole


Not with 65% of Americans against a war that was sold to them as a lie, particularly lying about WMD's. The IAEA has said that Iran is cooperating. We have to use that information.

Honestly, The only tension buildup that I have seen regarding War on Iran is here on ATS. Many artticles posted by the Telegraph or other crackpot websites that claim to "Know" things or that imply that tensions are building.

Honestly, I don't see it.

reply to post by TruthWithin


Yes but what happens if another terror attack is used to scare the people? If another 9/11 type of attack happened, the people will be all to willing too support military action.

[edit on 9/17/07 by AcesInTheHole]

The more I research war in the Middle East; I'm convinced that it is a continuation of the Christian Crusades against the Muslims. It has nothing to do with Nukes, WMDs or oil.

These are religious wars meant to bring about Armageddon and the second coming. In other words; orchestrated wars to fulfill Biblical Prophesy. This is spiritual in nature; much bigger than even global politics.

Have you noticed the subtle upsurge in Muslim bashing in the MSM.

Even though the Conservative talking heads like to rail against the MSM; actually they have become the MSM if you look at the market shares.

It just gets stranger and stranger.

Look for signs in the sky next.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by whaaa]

absolutely frightening. Time to get the emergency gear out and head to the hills! :O I don't get why we have to go around 'raiding' all these countries just to flex a few muscles. Hmmm..

I absolutely agree that if a major attack happened in the US and it was pinpointed back to Iran, then there would be support. But how is that possible? Iran, for all intents and purposes does not posses nuclear weapons (and the closest they could be is 5 years).

So lets say there is an attack on US soil. How do we make the Iran link? Now that most of the country has a very vigilant eye, or at the very least, an apprehensive eye.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
I absolutely agree that if a major attack happened in the US and it was pinpointed back to Iran, then there would be support. But how is that possible? Iran, for all intents and purposes does not posses nuclear weapons (and the closest they could be is 5 years).

Nukes weren't needed on 9/11. A biological threat or attack could be used as well.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
I absolutely agree that if a major attack happened in the US and it was pinpointed back to Iran, then there would be support.

Except any 'proof' of the connection would most likely need to come from the US Government. And their creditability is totally shot.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
So lets say there is an attack on US soil. How do we make the Iran link? Now that most of the country has a very vigilant eye, or at the very least, an apprehensive eye.

By saying that the "terrorists" got the nuke somewhere else, and they will investigate that later, but they were iranian extremists hating America, therefore Iran must be attacked in the interest of World Peace.

Then you can add that bin laden is hiding around there somewhere, and that Al Quida is believed to be around. Maybe they have even gotten a "anonymous tip" that he is planning another attack on America! Its very important that they strike now or there could be a massive loss of american lifes by biochemical weapons and dirty bombs on american soil. May god bless america!

It will work, I almost guarantee it will. I dont think the majority have accepted that 9/11 was a inside job even, or?



[edit on 17-9-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by TruthWithin
So lets say there is an attack on US soil. How do we make the Iran link? Now that most of the country has a very vigilant eye, or at the very least, an apprehensive eye.

By saying that the "terrorists" got the nuke somewhere else, and they will investigate that later, but they were iranian extremists hating America, therefore Iran must be attacked in the interest of World Peace.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Copernicus]

Ok. So a nuke or bio/chem weapon goes off in a major city in the US. HOW do we link it to Iran? We would have a hard time doing so because of the scope of the global war on terror. Unless there was implicit intel, ie something stating DIRECTLY that the weapon and those responsible come from iran, then there would be a lot of doubt. Why not from Afghanistan, or Pakistan or even Syria?

Also, even IF Iran had nukes, what is to say they would use them? They know that if it was traced back to them that their entire country would be demolished.

reply to post by TruthWithin


If something goes off on US soil then they will just point out that these traces of whatever blew off were from Iran, the same way powell showed us moving trucks with bio weapons. ( I was laughing out loudly when they presented moving bio trucks in UN). They will just prove that these traces loks smiliar to what IRAN have. After invading Iran, we will find out that those traces were not from iran and then we will start liberating people of Iran.

Rest is assured.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by netscape]

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Ok. So a nuke or bio/chem weapon goes off in a major city in the US. HOW do we link it to Iran? We would have a hard time doing so because of the scope of the global war on terror. Unless there was implicit intel, ie something stating DIRECTLY that the weapon and those responsible come from iran, then there would be a lot of doubt. Why not from Afghanistan, or Pakistan or even Syria?

Also, even IF Iran had nukes, what is to say they would use them? They know that if it was traced back to them that their entire country would be demolished.

I would say by the same way they did with Iraq - they just make up a story. For example, say he has weapons of mass destruction and is planning to attack. They dont need anymore proof this time than they did with Iraq, right?

And I dont think Iran would use nukes. I believe USA would use nukes or chemical weapons on their population and then say Iran did it, for the purpose of going to war.

Oh, and Bush refuses to agree to a debate with the Iran leader, simply because he just wants to go to war. Also he doesnt respect Iran but says its a "diversion". War should be the last action taken, not the first. But Bush wants this war badly.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Copernicus]