WHY THE IRAN ATTACK MAY BE IMMINENT

[redacted]

WHY THE IRAN ATTACK MAY BE IMMINENT
Compilation of recent reports:

AIRCRAFT CARRIER/BATTLE GROUP DEPLOYMENTS

War Signals?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

Activists say Ike Battle Group heading to Iran; protest planned
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=5479751&nav=23ii

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361


RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL SAM GARDINER

(VIDEO) Attack On Iran Inevitable - Nuke Use In White House Plan
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15170.htm

The End of the “Summer of Diplomacy”
Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PR&pubid=110
http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/gardiner_summer_diplomacy.pdf


IRAN FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT

Sanctions will threaten U.S. interests, not Iran, Tehran officials, state radio say
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/01/africa/ME_GEN_Iran_US.php

21 Dem Senators Follow Santorum Into War With Iran
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/3/83734/61208


POLITICAL ANALYSIS

The October Surprise
Gary Hart
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-october-surprise_b_30086.html

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran
Paul Craig Roberts
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/092606ROBERTS.shtml

Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran
Ray Close
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14694.htm


FINANCIAL MARKETS

October surprise coming? There may be proof. Look at Oct put options.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2278395

Stock Market "Put Options" Before Oct. 6 May Indicate Market Collapse
http://www.falseflagnews.com/terrordrills/major_stock_market_put_options_before_oct._6_may_indicate_market_collapse_or_anticipation_of_terro


RELATED MILITARY EXERCISES

STRATCOM Global Strike exercise Global Lightning 07 scheduled October 24 – November 8
http://falseflagnews.com/wargames/stratcom_global_strike_exercise_global_lightning_07_scheduled_october_24_november_8

Oct. 13-27: NATO Exercise "Maple Arch 06" in Lithuania with Canada, Poland, and Ukraine
http://falseflagnews.com/wargames/oct._13-27_natoexercise_maple_arch_06_to_take_place_in_lithuania_with_canada_poland_and_ukraine

[aquart]

1. And when Caligula nukes Iran, what will we do?

Rally around our tattered flag? Or arrest the bastard and detain him in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant?

[MrCoffee]

47. Can we wait and see whether the Enterprise is rotated back before

we declare that we've declared war on Iran?

[FogerRox]

53. Marine expeditionary forces are on the move

Carrier & Marine deployments & more, re: Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2301544

Roger

[chill_wind]

2. Shit storm gathering --- *off the radar*

K&R. *Thank you* for this thread. I was just trying to do something like this myself, if only to pull some current threads together and direct more attention, many with links as above.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2539716&mesg_id=2539716

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2289751

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2296103

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=112038&ran=207726

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2534654

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2541887

[redacted]

3. Thanks chill_wind

Just concerned that the Foley scandal may be distracting us from, among other things, battle plans.

[chill_wind]

7. I hear you.

And for the record, the notion of any engineering of the Foley leaks as cover isn't being suggested here by me anywhere. I can't reiterate that enough. What concerns me a lot more is what it sounds like concerns you and a lot of us -- just the facts and the speculations in your outline so far.

And that Gardiner was at least one who predicted this would all be kept "below the CNN line." He said that- and gave his reasons for his thinking- in a report that came out a couple days *before* Foley story broke. No way was he anticipating Foley.

[countryjake]

9. Thanks for pulling it together like that, there are more...

that weren't even commented on, dropped like lead.

Back in the day, they used to use moon shots to cover their decrepit militarism; nowadays, it's....

[chill_wind]

43. If you get a chance at some point and link them here also,

I know I would read them. I hope they too will get some discussion.

[Subdivisions]

13. Thanks for kicking these threads, Chill! People don't seem to be

getting this.

The mechanics of a new war with Iran have been put into motion and the Foley thing is helping keep it covered up.

Keep this up there and rec!

[demwing]

25. All of this smells like a distraction

as I worried about here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2298162&mesg_id=2298248

Watch the news carefully friends, because if the Repukes are not collapsing, then they're conspiring.

[chill_wind]

52. Thanks for that round-up, too! nt

[leftchick]

24. whoa!

thank you!

[FogerRox]

54. My update is here

Carrier & Marine deployments & more, re: Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2301544



Roger

[chill_wind]

64. recommend to all. thanks! nt

[Nederland]

4. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Especially with an election coming up.

[immoderate]

8. If anything, there will be an air strike.

Militarily, it will be a disastrous failure. Nothing new for this admin.

--IMM

[QuestionAll...]

14. a redefining of success and failure has to be looked at.

through the reptiles eyes.

this admin is not so much incompetent than right on track of what they are really after.
chaos, destruction, population culling. flexing all those new tech and bio muscles. borders for the pleebs and borderless for their wars and profits.

rip the fabric apart.
tear down everything
children included, there and here.
make nothing sacred.

[immoderate]

27. That's a good point.

It will impress their base. Not so good with the rest of humanity.

--IMM

[QuestionAll...]

33. let's try to keep it, our humanity.

one at a time. in small ways. in however we can do it. stand.

it's being whittled away from us on purpose by the largeness of all the ugly. but we can still do small beautiful things. Millions of us.

[Telly Savalas]

66. It may impress their base, but it will alienate the 70% of the electorate

that aren't their base. It would be a disasterously stupid move politically.

[immoderate]

71. We're talking about George W. Bush here.

Disasterously stupid is no impediment.

--IMM

[Telly Savalas]

73. Then why are people trying to offer a rationale for why he'd do it?

If he's that fucking stupid, he'd do it just cause he can. No discussion necessary.

Quite to the contrary though, one can make a pretty compelling case that the GOP has a pretty good sense of how much bullshit policy they can foist on us before they need to lay off the gas pedal. Granted the net impact of these policies has led to a gradual erosion of his support, but I can't think of a single policy they've implemented in the last 6 years which resulted in an immediate drop in poll numbers.

[immoderate]

78. You are right, with possible exception of Katrina.

And Katrina was not a policy, it was the Bush lack of policy. He really doesn't take decisive actions, except Iraq which was buoyed by 9-11 war frenzy. His overall policy is neglect, which works at the speed of rust, as far as his ratings go. An Iran bombing may fit though, because his ratings are near bottom, and he may figure that this will rally people to his side. I don't think that bush and the GOP are the same thing though. The party is pretty helpless and they are just slaves now. where you say GOP, i would insert "Rove."

You make a good point though, bad as he is, he has not let the pot overflow. I think he may have Latin America in his sights. A little misdirection, a job for Kissinger.

--IMM

[Subdivisions]

16. I maintain that the election coming up is exactly why this could

happen.

War with Iran on or around November 1. By then the bill just passed by the House and Senate that makes Bush a dictator will have been signed into law. He can do whatever the fuck he wants.

So, start the war and use it as an excuse to recall the 109th Congress and declare the elections suspended on the grounds that we are at war.

After he signs that bill, he can do whatever he wants! You should wake up and smell the possibilities.

[Buttercup McToots]

83. Correct

I believe you are correct...if he does it b/4 the elections in Nov, he still has the power.
After though, it would be more difficult with the Dems in the majority...
Don't you think?

[dysfunctional press]

85. we,ve been at war during elections a number of times in our history

and they've NEVER been 'called' on account of war...

it won't happen this time either.

stop fretting.

[Nederland]

100. You are delusional about this

Congress will never pass a law making ANY president a dictator. Passing such a law would mean that THEY (Congress) would loose all the power they have. All politicians to a degree are in the business because of the power elected office brings--and that is true of Republican politicians even more so. It simply isn't going to happen.

[Subdivisions]

114. "Dictator" is defined in this situation because the bill gives the

president unprecedented powers to make unilateral decisions without the need to have his decisions approved by Congress.

Was Julius Caesar not a Roman dictator in conjunction with the Roman Senate?

Was Saddam Hussien not a dictator in conjunction with the National Assembly of Iraq?

Would you like me to find you more instances where a dictator ruled in conjunction with, or in spite of, some sort of "Congressional" body? Hmmm...let me go do a little research about Hitler and Moussilini and Stalin and Lenin and see if they ruled in conjuction with the presense of some sort of senate or parliament or proletariat...

It's called:

RUBBER STAMP!!!

[Lasher]

92. Maybe not. But if it does the upcoming election might be the reason.

Bush's job approval rating gained 33% and 14% from declaring war on “terror” and war on Iraq. Capturing Saddam gave him another 6%. Killing Al-Zaqarwi seems to have helped. Verbal heroics for September 11 may help. He needs another approval-rating boost now more than ever, and he is talking of war with Iran. From past experience, it appears that two weeks before the November elections would be the most effective time for such an adventure.

http://zfacts.com/p/307.html

Quite a chilling observation, don't you think?

[LunaSea]

5. k&r

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Now THAT is a distraction.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. One that would even cause this excellent multi-tasker to lose focus

[spin]

10. Why Bush invaded Iraq

The reason Bush invaded Iraq wasn't oil. Oil was viewed as a possible side benefit. Bush wanted a foothold in the Middle East to launch an attack against Iran. Our president has stated that he believes he is on a mission from God and God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

I always get this bad feeling when someone says they have had a conversation with God. I wonder if the Devil has played him for a fool.

[BrotherBuzz]

19. That, and the Straussians bombastic PNAC foreign policy bush follows

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html

<snip>

The lexicon of the Bush doctrine of unilateral world domination is laid out in detail by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), founded in Washington in 1997. The ideological, political, economic and military fundamentals of American foreign policy - and uncontested world hegemony - for the 21st century are there for all to see.

PNAC's credo is officially to muster "the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests". PNAC states that the US must be sure of "deterring any potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" - without ever mentioning these competitors, the European Union, Russia or China, by name. The UN is predictably dismissed as "a forum for leftists, anti-Zionists and anti-imperialists". The UN is only as good as it supports American policy.

The PNAC mixes a peculiar brand of messianic internationalism with realpolitik founded over a stark analysis of American oil interests. Its key document, dated June 1997, reads like a manifesto. Horrified by the "debased" Bill Clinton, PNAC exponents lavishly praise "the essential elements of the Reagan administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities". These exponents include Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon made up of leading figures in national security and defense, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Reagan-era White House adviser Elliott Abrahms.

Already in 1997, the PNAC wanted to "increase defense spending significantly" to "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and "to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". The deceptively bland language admitted "such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next".

<more>

Or go right to the source and see what they are peddling: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[chill_wind]

50. Agree. They knew Saddam was broke after a decade of choking sanctions.

An easy topple. Iraq was to be the walk-in for the rest. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld denied the existence of permanent bases for the longest time.

[LSK]

11. these threads have been constant for 6 months now

:eyes:

[90-percent]

15. October Suprise

My guess for this elections October Suprise is the suprise invasion of Iran by the USA.

What could go wrong?

-85% Jimmy

Are we trying to get the whole World to Make a "Coalition of Countries against the USA"?

[LSK]

18. with what troops??

Go watch the Generals testify to Dems last week. They dont even have weapons to train with.

[readmoreoften]

32. With no troops. With the ships that were sent there.

And with bombs that fall from the sky.

[Telly Savalas]

75. Closer to 16 months.

[leveymg]

17. Similar post at DKos today by LondonYank

I'll have to say the same here that I did there:

This is very general, but rides on the shoulders (3+ / 0-)
of the body of writing I've put out for years.

The impression that Washington wants Tehran to have that the U.S. is prepared to go to war is A VERY DIFFERENT THING from any realistic threat the American military will actually attack Iran.

Appearance vs. reality. Don't mistake one for the other. Pysops are supposed to be scary.

Excellent pulling together of what little public source information is actually out there on the subject. Treat with the skepticism it deserves.

[bananas]

21. I hope you're right

You were right about it earlier this year.
Do you have a link to that dkos thread?

[leveymg]

23. Here'd that link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/3/6116/80502 :hi:

[ElboRuum]

102. Pysops?

You mean psyops, right?

Never mind the corrections... "piss-ops", I like the sound of yours better.

[inanna]

20. kicked and recommended

[brettdale]

22. I dont think so

The Bush will bomb Iran talk has been going on since 2005, he wont do it before the midterms.

[tex-wyo-dem]

26. Let's not forget, also, that Lebanon was a test run for Iran...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

Cheney and the other PNAC neocons have been chomping at the bit for a while now to attack Iran. They would have done it by now if Iraq hadn't been such a disaster.

They know that they've been steadily losing support at home, but they want to escalate the war in the region and get it done before the chimp leaves office...if, in fact, he does.

[liberalla]

61. Wasn't Lebanon was a disaster too?

I agree they want to go after Iran. With everything going so badly here at home, I could see them moving forward with it. I've been expecting a horrid October surprise for quite a while. Something really drastic. :hide:

They are feeling cornered, and are particularly dangerous right now.
I fear they will do anything and everything to retain power. :nuke:

...And then I flip it over in my head and hope that other powerful forces will step in and change the course... wrest control from the Neocons before they start another war.

[bbgrunt]

28. thanks for assembling all this----!!!! k and r

[redacted]

40. Thanks bbgrunt!

:yourock:

[Chomp]

29. There is no iminent invasion of Iran

It is logistically, politically and financially impossible.

I think that is pretty clear.

[Subdivisions]

30. Are you naive or what? How much do you know about PNAC? eom

I contend that their only option is to attack Iran before the election. Foley is a DIVERSION! Everything is a DIVERSION.

They can hijack our government AND attack Iran all at the same time.

[Chomp]

34. Ironically,

it is naive to believe that an invasion is iminent.

Worse, it betrays a lack of understanding of geopolitics.

Sorry to have to break it to you so bluntly, but as bluntness appears to be your preferred method of communication, I'm sure you'll take it on the chin.



Chomp.

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. Sorry, Chomp, I respect your opinion, but...

if we were dealing with rational people here that had any appreciation for geopolitical, military and fiscal reality, you would be right. Problem is that the PNAC'ers are hell bent on making their vision become reality...that being controlling a major part of the world's energy reserves.

Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Subdivisions]

39. I also respect you opinion and if you read me as blunt, it's because

I intended to be blunt. There's no time for pc-ness or niceties when it comes to PNAC's master plan. I consider it my duty as a citizen to see to it that I convince naysayers like you that there is more to the picture than the diversions taking place now.

When shrub signs that torture bill, it's all over. He'll have total power to do what he wants. That's the same as saying that PNAC has the power to do what they want. And they want to GRAB THE WORLD BY THE BALLS and sieze control of the world's energy resources and then maintain a stranglehold on power.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

88. We can't win a conventional war with Iran right now. Nukes?

I don't see it, but these assholes are capable of anything.

[readmoreoften]

35. If you're a rational leader it isn't possible.

If you're an oil and power thirsty lunatic, or better yet a cabal of them, then it's a great idea. Politically impossible, I have no idea what you mean. But it is financial possible. All you have to do is borrow the money for it or cut more social services. It is logistically possible. They'll get the troops even if they have to draft.

It's already a done deal. Read the playbook. It's all going swimmingly from their perspective.

[Chomp]

38. I don't know where to begin...

Do you honestly think that the Admin. could sell a second war in the ME to the US people? You think they could do an "Iraq 2" and lie their way into war and get away with it? Absolutely ridiculous.

Not even their own corrput party would buy it. Not even those reptiles. The US would erupt in political turmoil. It would be a political bloodbath and would finish Bush off long before 07. It would finish off him and the NeoCons before a bullet was fired.

No - in a domestic politcal sense, it is impossible.

What about international politicas and US allies? You think the British would support them? The Spanish, the Italians, the Poles, the Aussies? Pah! Gimme a break. Not fucking one of them would. The US would be 100% on their own. Impossible, politically. Impossible.

This gets us to the logistics.

A war with Iran would mean the US occupying a huge portion of the ME - THREE ENTIRE COUNTRIES!!! - all of which are hostile to their presence there. Is that what you are saying is going to happen? Do you have any comprehension of the suicide mission that would be?

Jesus fucking Christ. Iran would be 10 times the job Iraq is! Apart from anything they have an enormous, well-trained, loyal army. It would make Iraq look like Grenada. Can you not see that? Can you not see that it would be, literally, impossible for the US to control these 3 countries.

You say: "All you have to do is borrow the money for it or cut more social services." Borrow money for what, exactly? To pay for what? More money alone does not build you a war machine, and certainly not overnight. Unless you think loads of money will get them a few new aircraft carriers and another 300,000 soldiers in the next month or two? That it will instantly produce the munitions, vehicles, guns, bombs, trainig facilities etc etc that are already working to breaking point dealing with Iraq? All the money in the world won't win Iraq, so why do you believe it makes a difference WRT Iraq?

What about the troops? Where do they come from? Conscripts? Don't make me fucking laugh - you don't invade a country with conscripts. This is not even to mention the fact that the lead-up/training time to get the first batch of conscripts on the front line from today is probably about 2 years (assuming they got conscrtion thru congress in the first place!). So, divert troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Jesus. Have you been watching the news? Does it look like the US has troops to burn?

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

As I said, it is politically, logistically and finacially impossible.

[Subdivisions]

41. Ok, you've lost me. You seem to think that these people give

Do you honestly think that the Admin. could sell a second war in the ME to the US people? You think they could do an "Iraq 2" and lie their way into war and get away with it? Absolutely ridiculous.

...a shit about what "We the People" say or want. HA! They don't have to sell a DAMN THING to the American people. They do whatever the fuck they want to do and when Bush signs that bill, that will seal the deal.

I couldn't make it past your first paragraph. Sorry.

[Chomp]

44. Hahaha!

"They do whatever the fuck they want to do and when Bush signs that bill, that will seal the deal."


How? How will they do "whatever they want"? What resources do they have that will enable them to "seal the deal"?

Please explain to me the sequence of events that makes your proposition plausible...




Ed; Spelling of "plausible".

[chill_wind]

57. Try reading the Gardiner report (26 pages pdf) and the other links

in the OP. Not to be curt here, but I guess I'd have to put more money on their understanding of "geopolitics" as you put it to others here, than I would yours.

The other DU threads contain a lot of info and discussion as well, that we haven't touched on here.

One thing does seem apparent-- we're on our way RIGHT NOW to do a little fresh "perception management" with cruise missiles.

[ldf]

60. WE provide the APPEARANCE

of sending more military to the middle east to kick iran's ass, when we really can't even wipe our own ...

and we let ISRAEL do the fighting for us. they would probably leap at the opportunity.

but it would only be reported that they were part of the "support" efforts.

we take the blame, and then take over.

that is ONE way it could be done.

[readmoreoften]

69. Bush just got 34 democrat senators and the American people

to support the end of habeus corpus (the right to be presented with the charges against you) and to accept torturing American citizens who, by hearsay alone, are judged to be enemies of the State. And you think they can't get a population to go to war?

1) Politically impossible? Anything is politically possible in this administration. Without the threat of real elections and with no media to challenge them, they have nothing to fear. Anyone who doesn't support the war on Iran coddles terrorists. They support Holocaust deniers and they don't know how to stay the course.

2) Troops don't matter. The new military philosophy is as few boots on the ground as possible and many airstrikes. We may not fully invade Iran. We may just bomb their nuclear facilities, possibly causing millions of deaths (by the Pentagons own estimation)

3) "Winning" doesn't matter. The point very well may be to destablize the region. Last night I was at a meeting where the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan was speaking. He resigned because his post largely consisted of passing information between the Uzbek regime--who were hired by the Bush administration to torture muslim peasants and farmers into giving false confessions and false testimony against men they had never met in foreign countries--to the United Kingdom. He stated that it was not out of the realm of possiblity that the Regime has no interest in ending terrorism, but in perpetuating it in order to continue war indefinitely.

4) Financially it is possible. You take the tax payers' money and funnel it to Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, and Blackwater. Rinse, wash, repeat. The citizens get restless, grow poorer, etc. But 30% of the population are religious fanatics that don't care about economics in the least. Another 15-20% are warmongers. The other 50% will never revolt because they are (choose one) afraid, distracted, uninformed, unorganized. Israel may also subsidize a chunk. When all is said and done, America has control of a massive oil well. Or, wait, I meant Corporate America. When they get rich, it will trickle down back to us, and by extension, back into the economy.

5) They are on a course. And they are staying that course. Reason hasn't stopped them yet. The good of the American people or the health of the economy hasn't stopped them yet.

6) We've been conducting military exercises inside Iran. And we're on our way there.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

89. 34 Democrats voted against the torture bill, not for it.

nm

[Individualist]

96. 12 Senate Dems plus 34 House Dems equals 46

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

98. The post claimed that 34 democratic senators voted against it

I was not aware of the house numbers and they weren't germain to my comment anyway.

More than 0 is unacceptable, but WTF.

[Individualist]

105. WTF, indeed. I suggest you read your own post again

It did not say 34 democratic senators, it said 34 democrats. Your number was incorrect(even if you had specified democratic senators)as was the preceding poster's number. www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
Maybe you have a problem with facts, but when stating something as fact, I try to be accurate.

[Chomp]

103. Hi ReadMoreOften

Firstly, thanks for taking time to respond to my post.

I'd like to reply and, for the most part, disagree with you.


1) People keep assigning almost mystical cunning and adroitness to this shower. But in reality they are just a bunch of chancers, crooks, opportunists and idiots. They just play hard and for keeps. That does not mean that have the ability to lie about 2 wars and get away with it. Especially after their fisrt one was (is) such a total catastrophe.

I would go so far as to say that there would be a reasonable chance of a major constitutional crisis with the military top brass openly questioning the CiC's orders. Would the grunts in the intelligence services just button-up like last time? Would the NYT take a pass? Will people like Arlen Specter? Will the Democrats vote for it?

No way. The whole thing would crack to pieces and Bush would be, somehow, out of office. Last time was a freak, an aberation. If you think America will stand for it again from this bunch of idiots you can't think much of America.

Erm...fool you once, ah...won't, won't get fooled again.


2) What are we talking about here - is it strategic air strikes on nuclear facilites, or is it war? To me, people in this thread are clearly talking about war. Strategic air strikes are a slightly different matter with different consequences. So perhaps people need to watch their language. Iraq is a war. So if you say "war on Iran", then surely we're talking about something similar?

You say: "The new military philosophy is as few boots on the ground as possible and many airstrikes." Would this be Rummy's new super-light, super-efficient, super-technological war machine? The notion is an absurd fantasy. Why didn't it work in Iraq? Why would Iran be any easier? What about Iran's air force (non existent in Iraq)? How do you wage a war from the air only? I can think of no example of such a thing in history.

If troops didn't matter, Iraq would be mission accomplished.


3) What "regime" do you mean? The Uzbeks or the Americans? lol. Anyway, of course the Uzbek regime love the WoT...of course, it keeps them in power. I totally agree. They are a shocking bloody crowd.


4) Jesus, this * lot really have done a job on you, haven't they? This is America you're talking about! Somehow a bunch of frat boys and draft dodger are going to pull the wool over everyne's eyes for perpituity and all time, for ever and ever, Amen? Really. Nonsense. It is a phase that historians will note as a sick abberation. This seems to me to be self-evident at this stage. They are finished this crowd. Their powers are gone.

On the money, it is possible. But it would bankrupt America. And unless that is part of the Masterplan too, I doubt they want that. And any notion that perpetual war at a crippling price is somehow self-sustaining is again not bourne out by any example from history. Perpetual war ends empires.


5) A war declaration/green light from Congress is pretty close on impossible IMO, irrespective of what happens in November.

[readmoreoften]

123. Well Chomp, I'll put you down as an optimist.

I like optimists. I think they are wrong, but in my heart I sincerly hope that they are right. I would love to believe that freedom-loving Americans won't stand for Bush Co. and that, instead of being a well-organized cabal, they are a handful of lucky idiots. I tend to go with "the best predictor of future behavior is current behavior." As a college teacher at a major university in NYC, almost everyone I meet is theoretically liberal and theoretically well-informed. I would say that only about 10% of this population seems to know about the Military Commissions Act, and only about 5% are committed to doing anything about it at all-- even doing further research on the issue. I do not see a mass uprising. I don't even see a mass eye-opening any time soon. But don't get me wrong-- I'm glad you see it. Because I hope I'm just a rotten curmudgeon. I hope so with all my heart.

I would like to believe that the Bush Admin is just incompetent and besotten with dumb luck. But I also know that the smartest ruse in the world is the ruse of stupidity. This, I believe, is why GWB is the front man of the operation. I wholeheartedly believe that he is about as dumb as pound of ham, but I think that those behind him are quite clever-- or at least well-schooled in Goebbel's techniques. Once again. I hope that, beneath it all, Bush-Cheney-and-Rumsfeld are like the three stooges. I hope you're right.

[paparush]

119. Bush** doesn't have to SELL it... He can act, unilaterally..

without Congressional rubber stamp for what, 90 days. (maybe its 45 days).

Either way, that's PLENTY of time to bomb the shit out of Iran.

So, he bombs the shit out of them. They, in return, sink several of our Navy's ships, bomb Israel, and move troops into Iraq.

Bingo..That's what Bush wants. He's trying to provoke Iran into DEFENDING ITSELF. Then, the spin machine turns 'defending oneself'into TYRANICAL ACTS OF TERROR THAT THREATEN FREEDOM. Bush goads Congress to rubber stamping his new war. Congress, not wanting to shrink in the face of TYRANICAL ACTS OF TERROR THAT THREATEN FREEDOM, will pass Resolution XYZ giving the President " the authority to protect America's interest..blah blah blah..."

Our only hope -

Congressional Elections are not stolen AND Dems are able to gain a majority.

OR

The Generals finally say Fuck this Shit and refuse to carry out these insane orders.

[FogerRox]

55. It is ... the Bush administration after all

Carrier & Marine deployments & more, re: Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2301544

Please recommend.

Roger

[redacted]

59. Thanks Foger; Recommended!

:yourock:

[chill_wind]

62. Recommended. Holy crap! nt

[Telly Savalas]

68. I've been reading that the invasion has been imminent for nearly

two years now. I think "imminent" is defined in geological terms at DU.

[IronLionZion]

99. yup just like many Republican actions.

Just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they won't try to do it.

[Jack Rabbit]

122. It is logistically, politically and financially impossible.

Common sense never stopped a neoconservative.

We're an empire now. When we move, we create our own reality. -- Anonymous White House aide to Ron Susskind

Every one is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[yojon]

31. They have to come up with something pretty flashy to drive

Foley out of the news. Remember those time graphs that showed *'s popularity after each 'terrorist attack'?

[Telly Savalas]

74. Military action against Iran would be such a train-wreck

they'd be begging for Foley to get back into the news.

[AlamoDemoc]

36. K&R

[Individualist]

42. I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen by the end of this month

[paulk]

120. bookmarked n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

45. I guess Chimpy wants to be remembered...

... for starting WWIII. If we attack Iran, don't be surprised when China retaliates.

Iran and China is virtually in an economic alliance; Iranian fuel to China, Chinese consumer goods to Iran. (Why do you think China was opposed to sanctions of any kind?)

Would anyone seriously expect China stand idolly by if and when we attack one of its most important economic partners?

Oh, and Chimpy, CHINA ALREADY HAS THE BOMB. Officially, 20 of them can reach anywhere in the continental US. (Unofficially, who knows?)

[bbgrunt]

79. B* won't START it, there will be another Pearl Harbor

[Individualist]

97. That would be carried out by the cabal

Following that would come implementation of martial law and the Iran invasion, IMO.

[dogindia]

46. K&R.

[The Stranger]

48. Iran is still 4-7 years from being nuclear, but the DPKR is testing now,

and has delivery systems it claims can reach Los Angeles. Yet, still, it is the fetish with Iran and the Middle East.

[Imagevision]

49. Bush only has until Jan. 3rd. before he enters Lame-Duckland..

[tinfoilinfor2005]

51. This brings up an interesting question:

I live close to a large military base that also protects our borders, among other things. Years ago, before personal computers and email and cell phones and today's modern technology, we always knew when something was afoot because there was a great deal of unusual air traffic, a lot of it low and "under radar" as the locals used to call it. Although it was talked about in town, it stayed a pretty much localized event. I have to wonder now, what with modern technology, how could the government conduct a full fledged operation under the cloak of secrecy, as they did in previous years and previous wars?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Air strikes with cool videos to dazzle the public.

Complete with constipated looking politicians and generals dressed in camis surrounded by flags and lotsa talk about "heroic pilots" saving us from the evil Imams. Followed by talking heads and selected "experts" to assure us that it was all very necessary.

Erect bogeyman, wave flag, start bombing. Never fails.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[banana republican]

58. October surprise!!!!

1) Attack Iran

2) Protests in US follow

3) Use the"new & improved" terrorist interrogation law to imprison protesters.

4) Declare martial law....

5) Postpone elections indefinately.....

[liberalla]

63. I worry about 4 & 5

if they can't steal an election, they'll just stop having them.:grr:

And then things will REALLY get ugly.

[Yukari Yakumo]

82. Re: October surprise!!!!

1) Attack Iran

2) Protests in US follow

3) Use the"new & improved" terrorist interrogation law to imprison protesters.

4) Declare martial law....

5) Postpone elections indefinately.....

6) ??????

7) Profit

[Booster]

65. Bush has had wet dreams about nuking somebody since his

first day in office, and when they nuke us I can only hope he's in the same neighborhood as the nuke.

[Jcrowley]

67. Kick

Limited air assault at the least is in the works. If iran changes tack and goes along with the globalizers demands of control of the copious gas and oil reserves in Western Iran all attacks are off and pipeline patrols by NATO are on.

[and-justice-for-all]

70. A blockcade is an act of War....

...And its all Iran needs to justify retaliation which is NOT a war crime on Irans part since they would be defending theirself from an invading regime. If you think Iran is just going to sit back and take it, think again.

Even with sanctions, Iran has developed and maufactured a new fighter Aircraft, plus they have outpost along the Persian Gulf coast...

[chill_wind]

72. So who got to Harry? I ask again. He had a Hold on IFSA bill.

Then he reportedly dropped it at the last minute without any public explanation and we should be asking why. What was the carrot and/or the stick-- and what was the hellfire urgency for him and Dems to do this BEFORE this recess?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2290323&mesg_id=2293157

[redacted]

87. I was wondering the same thing.

[chill_wind]

90. Why are we the only two even asking? Strange, that. nt

[redacted]

108. Exactly, CW! Where's the oversight. . . over Harry?

Your point is well taken. That bill is real trouble. My understanding is that it legitimizes all sorts of activities designed to destabilizes Iran's government, including some military activities that are or may be illegal under our current laws. I don't understand why Harry apparently caved in on this one.

[DUyellow]

76. About two weeks ago...

my mother told me that my father noticed an increase of air activity in Palatka Florida and he thought something might be happening soon. He noticed the same thing during the first gulf war. At the time she told me this i didn't pay too much attention to it, but after reading this post now i see.

[McCamy Taylor]

77. Because W. and Cheney are desperate?

[cui bono]

80. okay... I'm starting to freak out now....

what if he really does it?

[Rainscents]

81. Gosh, I can't wait til Jan '09!

[progressoid]

84. Nope...nt

[Hissyspit]

86. Bush: "Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2297191&mesg_id=2297191

[npincus]

94. he uses jargon "do" like he's talking about a girl at a frat party

"Yeah, I'd do her".

Sophomoric turd.

[madrchsod]

91. well if bush wants to destroy a large part of our navy

i guess he can do it. a war with iran will be a bloodbath and a world wide depression but that is just another feather in his cap.

[bdamomma]

117. well bush has already destroyed the ground forces such

as the Army, the National Guard and the Marines, now he is moving on to eliminate the Navy, bush is a sick man, I keep on saying it, he needs to be lead away and needs psychiatric treatment.

[slackmaster]

93. Horse hockey

This is nonsense.

[madrchsod]

95. here is the problem

....

the coastline has shore to ship missles and swift missle attack boats...not something the navy wants to sail into

[Old and In the Way]

101. If I were a betting man,

I think I'd bet against this from happening. There really is no compelling reason to attack Iran today. I don't think nuclear weapons sometime in the distant future is justification. This administration has lot all legal/moral credibility to attack any other country.

OTOH, if you were in an administration that, at the very least, was responsible for ignoring warnings of an impending attack in which 3,000 Americans lost their lives, what would you do to avoid accountability? Add in a rather unstable thinker with a God/dictator complex and it could be dicey. The same suspects that were running the show on 9/11 are still running the show today. If they can't engineer another election fraud, what's left in their bag of tricks?

The window of opportunity to have done this may be past.....maybe the military will play 'hide the football' through the elections.

[Imagevision]

104. Attack On Iran Inevitable - Nuke Use In White House Plan? (ELECTION!!!!)

Will Bush call for immediate vote to attack Iran or what??????????????!

[redacted]

110. No, this attack will take place without any warning whatsoever.

There absolutely should be a vote, but there won't be one.

[bdamomma]

118. bush will just say he is the commander in chief and will protect

the Homeland :puke:

[Jcrowley]

106. Part One: Pretending You Didn’t Know

Iran: The Unthinkable War
Part One: Pretending You Didn’t Know
by Juan Santos

“Every nuclear weapon is a portable Auschwitz.”
 
-- Daniel Ellsberg
 
The Democrats are silent as the Bush regime prepares for war against Iran -- silent in the face of a potential nuclear mass murder -- even a global war. Silent in the face of an attack that could cause an utter meltdown of the global economy, a 1930s style Depression that would send millions, perhaps billions of people into starvation-level poverty, as the prices of oil and gasoline triple.
 
The potentials for horror for tens of millions of people in the region are almost unspeakable. Such a war would quickly spread to Iraq -- where Halliburton’s “Green Zone” in Baghdad would be turned to instant rubble by such missiles as were left for an Iranian counterstrike, giving US soldiers in the Zone their own taste of Lebanon, even as Shia Muslims turn a face of cold steel -- or wild, inconsolable grief and rage -- toward the death of every US and British soldier, mercenary, spy, journalist, and profiteer in Iraq.

According to Agency France-Presse, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said, “The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error. I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one.”

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct06/Santos02.htm

[Yukari Yakumo]

111. Questions are...

Will the two Islamic ideologies, Shia and Sunni, vent their fury at anything western or each other? Iran is predominantly Shia. Iraq is mostly Sunni.

Then there are both the Russians and the Chinese. Both have economic interests in Iran (moreso China). Both have opposed any sanctions of any kind in regards to Iran. Would either the Bear or the Dragon intervene if the Chimp decided to pick a fight?

[bif]

116. Iraq is 60% Shia, 33% Sunni

[oc2002]

107. At 200.00 a barrel of oil, whats the price at the pump? $5/gallon?

looks like a cold winter is comming.

[redacted]

112. More like about $10/gallon at the pump

Estimates I've seen suggest that current U.S. gas prices will TRIPLE at the pump if Iran carries out even a partially successful blockade.

If only more 4-Runner-driving rightwingers "got religon" over that estimate right away!

[oc2002]

115. I think it will bring back GASSOLINE RATIONIS LINE.

flash back to the 70's oh boy!~

[Ganja Ninja]

109. It wouldn't surprise me to see them create an incident.

Another Gulf of Tonkin like incident possibly a week before the election to get the war drums cranked up.

[redacted]

113. Many exercises that can quickly be "flipped" into real incidents are here:

http://www.falseflagnews.com/

The upcoming STRATCOM exercise seems particularly alarming.

[chill_wind]

121. Offensive Strike Plan Exercises.(Cheney's CONPLAN 8022?)

(from link)

Global Lightning exercises, according to STRATCOM documents, practices "nuclear combat readiness, proficiency and training" and "provides a bridging exercise between nuclear and non-nuclear forces." In other words, it practices escalation from conventional to nuclear war and implementation of the Bush administration's new global strike war plan, named CONPLAN 8022.



More than one ever wanted to know at the F.A.S. site

Large paper (130+ pages) on Stratcom. "Global Strike; Chronology of the Pentagon's Offensive Strike Plan." Many quotes from this admin on their "preemptive doctrine", stretching back over 6 years.

http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/GlobalStrikeReport.pdf

[redacted]

124. Thanks CW!

I hadn't seen that. One hell of a scary document, isn't it?

[chill_wind]

125. Yes it is. And hiding out there in plain sight

[GiveUsHope]

126. If that happens, we are hitting the streets all of us

Forget world can't wait, this is going to have to be huge and eclipse everything. Anyone at all opposed to it is going to have to raise hell like anything, just stop the normal flow of things. Fight back against their fear mongering and terror.