White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike

Originally posted by budski


Is he mad?
An Israeli attack on ANY arab country would immediately see the others rush to their aid - whether they're allies or not, whether they hate Iran or not.

It really is starting to seem like Cheney is trying to start WW3 - or is he hoping to subdue the entire region one country at a time by either diplomatic or violent means.

alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Although I agree that cheney and bush both need mental evaluations, I don't necessarily agree that other arab countries will rush to Iran's aid. Israel has already attacked syria and nobody really stood up to complain.

To clarify my position, I think a strike on Iran is incredibly idiotic on many levels. If it happens, I hope Congress gets a pair and impeaches both bush and cheney.

I think it would be interesting if we attacked Iran. Heck I say abolish the Iraqi government, Abolish the Afghan one, take over Iran, and create a new republic. My choice is U.S.M.E. "United States of the Middle East" we can call it Disney Land for short. There can be rides, explosions, cannabilism, rape, and murder. You name it, they'll have it. To make stuff more interesting, we can close all our prisons, and ship the prisoners there, every last one of them. Additionally, all illegal immagrants caught can be sent there, sure they can swim the Rio Grande, now try the Atlantic . Once all that is done, we legalize prostitution, drugs, gambling, and alcohol. Open up some theme parks, and we're set, move all our troops out, then watch the place go NUTS! I'm positive they be able to work out there differences and live happily ever after.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


oh come on - china a military threat to the US - they are years behind in terms of technology, force projection, in fact pretty much every way.

reply to post by budski


I didn't say military threat, did I?

There are other means of defeating someone other than military.

Read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu - A Chinese man, I might add.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I've read it - many times, along with a book of 5 rings.
The discussion is about military action is it not?

China does not yet have the economic means either



[edit on 26/10/2007 by budski]

reply to post by budski


It is about military, but the points I was talking about, specifically, are being silent, sort of giving off the appearance that you are weak, and secretly build up your resources to combat a threat.

That can be done by other means other than military.

And they do have the economic power to do damage to us. They have over a trillion dollars in reserve that they can dump and crash our economy. Much of our national debt is to them.

When you dump that, you crash corporations, and force the Federal Reserve to use it's gold reserves just to stay above water and continue to support the military.

If funding cannot get to our military, it won't take China being equal to us for them to defeat us.

another idea to put in the "big book of bad idea's"
im almost certain that he along with the other bumbling idiot's on this rotting meatwagon were probably dropped on their head's more than once when they were children.

sheesh!

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


And of course, china is not at all dependent on US and European markets - I'm sorry, but your argument does not hold water - compared to the US and European allies combimed, china is a mere minnow.
Of course in 50 years that might be different - but now? No

And do you seriously think that china would endanger her economy for the sake of iran? No chance, no more than they would threaten in a military way.

China is a moot point as far as this discussion goes - they are simply not a threat - not for a few decades anyway.
Perhaps Sun Tzu has clouded your mind, after all, he could never have envisioned a world of such complexity.
His theories and military treatise are now obsolete except as a source of proverbs.



[edit on 26/10/2007 by budski]

reply to post by budski


Alright, I guess we'll see. I stick by my opinion though.

And it hasn't clouded my mind. I've only read it once.

Too bad the article doesn't do a very good job on the story.

US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


We will indeed - here's some links to back up my argument
www.photius.com...

and this

and here

and finally this

there's lots more as well.

I can also compare military forces if you like.

Read these and tell me you still stick by your opinion

reply to post by deltaboy


The Der Spiegel article is better - but it's translated from German, and I'm sure something is lost in the translation.

Haha this news is at least a week old, if not two.
It's too bad we're using Isreal to start our wars for us. If we really think Iran is going to start something we should have the gall to attack them ourselves or wait for them to attack.

reply to post by Vashtar


Whens the last time Israel started a war for us? So far I've seen the U.S. going up first.

reply to post by Vashtar


The news is that it was leaked from cheneys office by a member of his staff.

Can you provide links that show the leak is as old as you say?

Evidence matters - talk is cheap.

reply to post by deltaboy


It DOES look like a case of the tail wagging the dog, doesn't it.

Personally, I'm in favour of supporting Israel - but only to an extent.

They've really got to get rid of that shoot first, ask later attitude - or maybe that's why cheney likes them.

Then again, given the recent history of the region (since the state of israel came into being), I'm not sure I wouldn't have the same attitude

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Novus... Mutually Assured Destruction... if China were to topple the US economically they would be toppling themselves. First of all, all of the US bond and debt paper that they hold would be worthless. Secondly, they would decimate their number 1 trade partner and consumer of Chinese goods. How do you think their burgeoning economy would fare if they lost their number 1 customer AND all of their securities suddenly becmae junk bonds?

reply to post by kozmo


I don't think he thought it through - although he might be right in 50 - 100 years

As talk is cheap I'll try my best,

It makes perfect sense for the USA to use Isreal's might for any attack in the Middle East but I'd caution em to watch out for Libya's counter attack thru Syria upon em.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Skydancer]

Oh yeah, that's a really reliable and independent source that the OP is citing.

It's scary how many people on here will believe anything, regardless of the lack of credibility of the source, as long as it supports their opinions/beliefs about (in this case) the Bush Administration.

First of all, any Israeli attack on Iran will not come by way of missiles. It will be an airstrike. The recent airstrikes in Syria were a dry run for the planned attacks on Iran, if it comes to that. Israel was able to completely defeat Syria's air defense system, one which is far superior to Iran's. It was a clear message to Iran that Israel can attack Iran whenever and wherever it wishes.

Furthermore, how would an Israeli missile strike on Iran and a subsequent retaliation on Israel give the US the justification or the support to attack Iran? I just don't see it. Additionally, I just don't see Israel sacrificing the lives of their citizens as part of a "false flag operation" designed to give the US a reason to attack Iran.

And another thing... why would Dick Cheney and his staff be making battle plans for an attack on Iran? Wouldn't the Pentagon and/or the CIA handle such things? They are the ones who draw up our plans, not the Vice President. And even President Bush knows better than to let Dick Cheney or his aides plan the attack on Iran, especially after the Iraq screw-up.

In closing, I have to get something off my chest. I love ATS. It is the only site I visit for conspiracy-related discussion. It's one of my top 3 websites of any kind on the net. But I am seriously dismayed by a large portion of the membership here. It is disturbing to see the amount of hatred and anger leveled towards our government, the Bush administration, the war, our troops, etc. It's one thing to be against the war and anti-Bush and whatnot. But it's an entirely different thing when you allow it to consume you and let it turn into hatred and anger. It's entirely different when it causes you to attack anyone with a differing viewpoint. And a lot of you are failing to "deny ignorance" when you give credence to ANY source, so long as it reflects poorly on President Bush or the war. I've actually read threads on here where people are taking the word of al Qaida and Osama bin Laden over that of our government and military.

Granted, I'm not a government shill or a blind Bush-supporter. Believe me, I am extremely disappointed in a lot of what Bush has done, as well as the overwhelming majority of our elected officials. I completely disagree with the direction of this government. I'm also considered a conservative, although not a religious fanatic or anything. And with all that being said, you STILL will never find me using rediculous websites and sources just because they support my personal beliefs. I'm not going to post something from a website like alternet.org even if it completely supports what I believe. I hope I'm properly conveying my thoughts on here, because I'm just rambling at the spur of the moment and I don't know if I'm being entirely clear. I just want everyone here to use common sense and take a breath. Step back and really consider the sources you are using and the logic of what they are writing about. Then substitute the names of people, countries, groups, etc. that you support for the names of those that are being bashed or tarnished in the article. Would you still then feel comfortable posting that information if it went against your views? In many cases, I doubt it.

It's extremely frustrating to see more threads about Bush being a reptilian than I see threads about the 50% reduction in attacks in Iraq since the surge began. It's frustrating to see more threads about the evil American government than threads about al Qaida terrorists targeting innocent men, women and children in Iraq. There's plenty more that I want to scream about, but it will all probably be in vein. I just hope that I properly conveyed some of my views and that those who disagree with me will do it in a respectful manner. Because I don't think I'm any better or smarter or more patriotic than those who I disagree with.