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

reply to post by Rasputin13


Did you actually read anything except the OP.
Original source was Der Spiegel.

Links included if you care to look.
Unlike some, I DO actually try to verify with more than one source - these are posted further down.

I also don't support insurgents, but nor do I support an illegal war for the gain of "our glorious leaders" and I include the leaders of my own country in that.

Also, pentagon etc would NOT necessarily be the planners. Operators yes, planners no, at least not in the first instance.
They would plan operational requirements and details - the overall strategy would come from elsewhere.

There's nothing wrong with patriotism, but when it's blind, it's dangerous.

[edit on 26/10/2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
Read these and tell me you still stick by your opinion

I do

I'd appreciate it if you didn't hound me about my opinion. I respected yours, you respect mine.

One of your links is from 2005, the other is from 1999. The CIA World Factbook, on there, it says:

United States: $ 13,060,000,000,000
China: $ 10,210,000,000,000

(Purchasing Power Parity)

Not far off. If we continue to dump billions into wars, and the housing markets continue the way they are, China will over take us very shortly, and not take the 50 years you estimate.

I already said I'm not talking about military so please stop trying to bait me. I'm not an idiot.

Originally posted by kozmo
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?

How do you think our economy would fare if we lost the country who builds everything for us?

As I said, they have over a trillion dollars in reserve. They can dump that and destroy our economy.

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

Don't insult me or my opinion. If you don't agree, then simply disagree. Don't say I didn't think it through when you haven't proved your point.

If you would like to prove your 50-100 year estimate, then by all means, show me some data.

In my opinion, in the next ten years, China will overtake us IF we don't change our ways. Something tells me we won't.

And as you see, I said "in my opinion", as is everything I've said, so you can stop the attacks.

Intially sounds like a good plan, but there are other implications of this scenario.

1. Syria would attack Isreal

2. Turkey would move into Northern Iraq to squash the Kurds

3. Internal Iranain discontent will be redirected towards the US

4. Worldwide extremist groups would terrorize europe and the US

5. Oil prices would skyrocket in price

6. Iraq would be thrown into chaos and probably into a civil war

7. A deep worldwide recession would be the end result.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Who's hounding?

I asked you to provide evidence - that's what you do in a debate.

If you can provide irrefutable evidence, then I'll alter my case (rather than opinion) until then, I'll feel free to refute it.

If you don't like people refuting your "opinion" and providing rebuttal then you're in the wrong place.

There's a place for opinion, but if that's all it is, and you can't back it up, be prepared for a bit of flak.

Simple really - or didn't Sun Tzu give you any pointers in that

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

And as you see, I said "in my opinion", as is everything I've said, so you can stop the attacks.

If you think I'm attacking you then feel free to use the complain button.

This thread is not about economic action by china, it is a military scenario which may or may not take place in the near future. So regardless of how you try to spin it, the point is invalid.

It's about a leaked document which allegedly states cheney's intentions regarding Israel vs Iran. and how they may use this as an excuse to make a move on Iran.

So you're off topic.

reply to post by eagledriver


I'd like to address some of your points, if I may

1. Syria would attack Isreal

I'd question if syria had the capabilty,especially if they knew the US was going to jump in.

2. Turkey would move into Northern Iraq to squash the Kurds

A definite possibility - but not if they want to improve their foreign relations.

3. Internal Iranain discontent will be redirected towards the US

Isn't it already?

4. Worldwide extremist groups would terrorize europe and the US

Again, isn't this already happening?

5. Oil prices would skyrocket in price

No argument there

6. Iraq would be thrown into chaos and probably into a civil war

It already is

7. A deep worldwide recession would be the end result.

I'm not sure about this, I'd be interested to knpw your line of thinking.

Originally posted by budski
If you don't like people refuting your "opinion" and providing rebuttal then you're in the wrong place.

Feel free to refute my opinion. I don't care.

But arrogantly saying "read these and tell me you still stick by your opinion" and insulting me by saying I haven't thought this through isn't a way to debate. So if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you at least act like you respect my right to my own opinion. If you can't do that, then please ignore me.

Also, since I have told you many times that this is my opinion, I'm not sure what there is to "back up". If I was claiming my opinion was fact, then yes, I should be expected to back it up. But I keep saying, and I'll say it again, I'm not implying what I'm saying is fact.

And one more thing, I'm not off topic. China and Russia are major players in the situation with Iran. Anyone who has been paying attention can see that.

But if the mods think I'm off topic, then they can give me a warning.

So, feel free to respond to this, but I'll leave it at this and move along.



[edit on 10/26/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Ok guys, let's tune down the personal stuff, OK?

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Very very true. However, don't take my "U.S. is the attack dog of Israel" analogy EVER AGAIN!! Ya freakin analogy thief. hahhahah


As far as the OP stating that it's "starting" to seem like Cheney wants WWIII, I would say it started to seem that way right about the time planes were flown into towers back in September of whatever year it was. World War III is exactly the money maker they are looking for; It's disgusting.


Jasn

reply to post by budski


Actually, I did read more than just the OP. But in the future when you claim to verify a story with multiple sources, you should list those multiple sources in the OP. I don't think its a requirement, nor should it be, for members to read every single post of a thread before they can respond to the OP. That would be absurd as it would severely limit discussion on this site with there only being 24 hours in a day and many of us having careers and lives.

Furthermore, I personally don't consider the copying and pasting of the same article by different sites to count as "multiple sources". The fact that you appear to do just that worries me. I also don't consider an article written by three authors to count as "multiple sources", so I am truly wondering where these multiple sources you speak of really are. Perhaps they are buried in a post on page 2 somewhere, and I'm just ignorant for not having read every single response of yours?

In addition, I don't consider a German article written by folks with a clear political agenda to be a reliable source. This is especially the case when they site an unnamed person inside the Bush Administration as the source for their article. If I had rolled by eyes everytime I partisan words like "neocon" and "hawkish" were used in this article, I'd have a headache. Whatever happened to the media being objective and unbiased? Surely, if I started a thread that bashed a Democrat Administration and their policies, and it included phrases like "left-wing radical" and "hippies" littered throughout it, you and others wouldn't accept it as a reliable source by itself. Especially if it came from a source like Fox News. Do you see the hypocracy that I'm trying to convey here?

Look, the article you posted may very well be true. I'm not going to dispute that because I don't have all of the facts. But at the very least it should be taken with a grain of salt as its authors appear to be biased and I've yet to see any additional sources (legitimate or otherwise) back up their claims. Bear in mind that I don't consider an article written by the very same media outlet and/or by the very same author to be an additional source.

I understand your personal opposition to the war. You are entitled to your opinion. And I hope that your comment about "blind patriotism" was not a reference to my beliefs. I don't blindly follow my leaders or my prefered political party. I've criticized this President and my government for countless things, including aspects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because I support the troops and I want to see a decisive victory in Iraq and a strong democracy established, does not mean that I'm a foolish neocon warmonger who wants to eat Iraqi children and pave the entire Middle East. It also doesn't mean that I want a military confrontation with Iran.

In closing, I still disagree with your comments about Cheney and his aides designing battle plans for an attack on Iran. That's just not something they do and despite the fact that Cheney was once a Secretary of Defense, it's not something that they are capable of doing. Planning for a military strike will take place in the Pentagon and with the aid of intelligence agencies. That's just the way it's done. Certainly, the VP will make his own suggestions and wishes known and will be frequently updated on the plans as they are drawn up. He may also be present when they are drawn up. Who knows? But I think it's absurd to assert that Cheney and Company are designing the military strike on Iran. As much of a puppet and pal of Cheney's people say the President is, I just don't see him allowing this to happen.

Of course, that's not to say that Cheney and his pals aren't sitting in front of a chalkboard and maps and drawing up a battle plan. But the very fact that they are does not mean that a war with Iran is going to happen or that the military will even use a battleplan that is drawn up by the VP's office. I think that believing such a thing is a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government and military function.

Maybe they, Bush and Cheney, do really want WWIII. This act would unite certain sects and the world would be divided into probably 3 distinct waring factions, similar to the book 1984.

Originally posted by infinite
There is an old proverb that goes;

"He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones"

This plan, if true, is dangerous and has the potential to create huger problems in the area. As a member put it, it would cause the Arab nations to rush to the add of Iran.

Who live in glass houses? Most of these guys have access to underground cities, almost exempt from a nuclear attack.

Originally posted by ChrisJr03
Maybe they, Bush and Cheney, do really want WWIII. This act would unite certain sects and the world would be divided into probably 3 distinct waring factions, similar to the book 1984.

Perhaps. But I don't think anyone wants WWIII moreso than Ahmadinejad. And if you don't believe me, just take HIS word for it! Almost all of his speeches focus on the "end times" and how he wants to usher them in. Of course, if you study his beliefs, the "end times" can only take place when the entire world is filled with bloodshed, ie WWIII. This also has something to do with Iran's meddling in the affairs of Iraq, as it is their belief that a lot of these major events are to take place in ancient Babylon, or current day Iraq.

Sorry- Ive got to raise the BS Flag on this one and until someone can show me a CREDIBLE news source, then this is just more Cheney bashing and pure speculation and conjecture. Typical around here nonetheless, but i need to see more than just the opinions floating around here as well as obscure news snippets. Thanks.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Sorry- Ive got to raise the BS Flag on this one and until someone can show me a CREDIBLE news source

And what would that news source be?

then this is just more Cheney bashing

May I ask why that would be a bad thing?

then this is just more Cheney bashing

And he deserves to be bashed.

I completely agree with the above poster on that.

The man is clearly trying to start a HUGE war. He cares nothing for civilian life, he just wants the war machine to make more money.

Quite frankly the man deserves ALOT more than just a few degrading remarks against him... but alas, I think the history books may just portray him as sadistic as hitler himself.

You don't see anyone defending hitler, do you?

If true it wouldn't be the first Cheney memo leak.. doesn't anyone remember the leak referring to the media push on the Iran war sure enough nearly a week after that leak the media starts pushing the Iran subject after a long hiatus...

reply to post by Rasputin13


Good points all,
but I don't think I claimed "multiple sources"
I thought I posted the original, verifying source to the alternet article - albeit a tad late. Yes it did belong in the OP, but I was late and in a hurry, but no excuse.

Couple of other points - I was referring to cheney when I mentioned blind patriotism, apologies if it seemed otherwise. Although you could substitute the word patriotism for any one of a lot of others with regard to cheney.
OK, I don't really like his (perceived) way of doing things, but I DO think the point in the article calling him a puppetmaster was a bit strong, but you also have to allow for the translation.

I stand by my thought that cheney instigating and/or laying down the guidelines for an attack is a distinct possibility - like I said, the details could be filled in by others, although I don't really picture him in a highbacked leather chair stroking a white cat, I do believe he's capable of plotting something like this.

In closing, I'll say that ANY news article in the public media should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
But a grain is not a pinch.
When I find a story that needs a full pinch of salt, then I'll take the flak accordingly - but I don't think this article falls into that category.