Pushing for war with Iran

[Qikdraw]

Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35448)

The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.

Now a blockade, appareantly an illegal blockade planned by the same guys that planned to use US Navy Seals to dress up as Iranians and attack US ships.

Uhmmm this is not good. If we get involved in another war before Bush leaves office we really need to chase them down and try them as war criminals. This is getting too much. It appears that the voices of the American people don't matter much to some people. I was hoping that war with Iran was getting put off the table, but it appears that its just moved to under the table.

This is not good.

[brazhunter]

Tinfoil hat stuff.

The US has had significant naval forces in the Gulf since Reagan when the Iranians were mining the Strait of Hormuz.

Unless it was Navy Seals dressed up as Iranians in dhows mining the strait.

[usmc1]

Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35448)



Now a blockade, appareantly an illegal blockade planned by the same guys that planned to use US Navy Seals to dress up as Iranians and attack US ships.

Uhmmm this is not good. If we get involved in another war before Bush leaves office we really need to chase them down and try them as war criminals. This is getting too much. It appears that the voices of the American people don't matter much to some people. I was hoping that war with Iran was getting put off the table, but it appears that its just moved to under the table.

This is not good.

Well you got Ivan, and who knows if its the leadership, or the generals acting as renegades, blowing right through the "cease fire" to take control of another Georgian region, and shifting forces into position to move on Ukraine.

Danged old Russian generals can be the damned biggest old cut-ups sometimes. But, not to worry, Bush looked into Putin's soul, and it's all good.

So they probably won't make good on their commitments to Iran if we were to screw with them.

Hhhhmmmm, can the world say Czeckoslovakia (I sure as hell can't spell it) or Chamberlain (got that, I think), and wonder what the Poles must be thinking right about. I sure wouldn't be holding on to my Ukrainian investments.

All we need, is for someone to cap a crown prince somewhere and we'd meander into WWIII, or would it be IV, hell I'm losing count.

This administration so damned stupid. What did they think would happen when they defied Russia with a Eastern Europe missle treaty aimed right at the Kremlin. About the same thing we'd think if the Russians cut a deal with Mexico to put missles in Mexico--oh, excuse me, that's right, "missle defense system", cough-cough. The 3rd Marine Dvision would be pulling liberty in Saltillo or Monterey right now--of course headquarters would be in Puerto Vallarta.

Unless they aboard ships heading for Iran, no wait they're in Iraq, well hell there's always the national guard, no wait, they're already deployed, well hell let's just call up the reserves.

Huh? Oh yeah, I forgot.

Ok, that's fine forgett he Marines, lets send in the army, they ain't screwed up nothing lately.

I know, I know, let's send in Blackwater! Halliburton is good to go with the logistics.

This kind of crap worked out really well for Rome, didn't it?

Well, didn't it?

Oh, yeah right.

[usmc1]

From Breitbart, Israel defense minister says the U.S. will not allow it to attack Iran. "ALLOW"?

Kind of takes the wraps off the real relationship doesn't it. Once a cat's paw, always a cat's paw, I guess. Seems our billions pour into Israel has been "well spent", they mind well!

Implicit in this is that when they made their foray into Lebanon, it was on our command.

A lesson in how to wage war without taking it to congress or the people.
<table style="width: 508px; height: 69px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: bold;" valign="top" width="99%">US against any Israeli strike on Iran: defence minister</td> <td rowspan="3" align="right" valign="top">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="99%">Aug 13 09:19 AM US/Eastern

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</td> </tr> </tbody></table><!-- date/author end --><!-- article start --> The United States is at present opposed to any Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday.

"The Americans are not ready to allow us to attack Iran," Barak told army radio. "Our position is that no option is to be taken off the table but in the meantime we have to make diplomatic progress."

Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power, considers Iran its main strategic threat because of its nuclear programme, which Israel and its US ally suspect is aimed at developing weapons.

Iran has repeatedly denied the allegations, insisting its the programme is aimed solely at providing electricity for its growing population when its fossils fuels run out.

Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that Washington recently rejected an Israeli request for military equipment that US officials said indicated Israel was at the "advanced stages" of preparing an attack.

Washington urged Israel not to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, warning that it would undermine US interests and demanding to know ahead of time if Israel decided to go ahead regardless, the paper said.

Barak did not mention the Haaretz report but said the US government's position was "well known."

"The only thing to do is to continue to act in the field of intelligence and to strengthen economic sanctions against the government of (President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," Barak said.

Senior US, European, and Iranian diplomats held rare face-to-face talks in Geneva last month aimed at resolving the impasse over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but were unable to agree on a deal to resolve the dispute.

[hm0504]

News from the other end of the axis of evil...

"N Korea 'rebuilds nuclear plant'":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7595863.stm

[Qikdraw]

News from the other end of the axis of evil...

"N Korea 'rebuilds nuclear plant'":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7595863.stm

Ok, so the US doesn't do what it promised to do if N. Korea takes apart is nuke plant... And N. Korea is the bad guy here? This is what is so wrong with current US foriegn policy, they just do not hold up their end of the bargain. All the US needs to do is do what it promised it would do, and problem solved.

I saw that Ammanapour story of the orchestra playing in N.Korea. It was a very powerful piece, and something we all need to work towards. Yes N.Korea has a long way to go, but small steps can be taken to bring them back. Breaking agreements is not a way to do this.

[Naturist Mark]

At the very beginning of the Republican National Convention's " 9/11 Video Tribute" (and how fitting that they paid tribute to a disaster that they exploited so powerfully for their benefit), the narration begins with "The first attack occurred in Iran. 444 days, America held hostage. Then again, and again. At our embassies, our navy. They grew, ever more bold. Their call was "on those who believe in God, and hopes for reward, to obey God's command to kill Americans". And kill us they did. This time on American soil."

The "they" in the narration is clearly not "al Qaeda", they have conflated the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis with al Qaeda terrorism a generation later. Apparently the enemy in this "they" is the muslim world, since there is no other connection between the Iranian Shiite regime and its mortal enemy the Wahabi Sunni based al Qaeda. They are both Islamic extremists and apparently both responsible for 9/11. Let's start bombing.

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26551523#26551523" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

-Mark

[hm0504]

Ok, so the US doesn't do what it promised to do if N. Korea takes apart is nuke plant... And N. Korea is the bad guy here? This is what is so wrong with current US foriegn policy, they just do not hold up their end of the bargain. All the US needs to do is do what it promised it would do, and problem solved.

I saw that Ammanapour story of the orchestra playing in N.Korea. It was a very powerful piece, and something we all need to work towards. Yes N.Korea has a long way to go, but small steps can be taken to bring them back. Breaking agreements is not a way to do this.

Frankly, I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop nuclear proliferation -- all we can do is try to slow it. As far as breaking agreements, that's a huge problem and a strategy that will likely ultimately backfire.

[hm0504]

Great video Mark (keep it posted), but is it the one you intended?

[Sanslines]

Let's start bombing.

-Mark


It's all bluster and fiery rhetoric. There will be no war and everyone knows it. At this point in time, with so little time left for the current administration, any calls for war are only from those who wish to further discredit the current administration in the hopes of sabotaging McCain's chances for election.

Let's have a fair election and put an end to the die hard rhetoric from both sides.

[Qikdraw]

It's all bluster and fiery rhetoric. There will be no war and everyone knows it. At this point in time, with so little time left for the current administration, any calls for war are only from those who wish to further discredit the current administration in the hopes of sabotaging McCain's chances for election.


Considering how far the McCain campaign has gone to distance themselves from Bush, I don't think further discrediting is needed. :D

[Sanslines]

Considering how far the McCain campaign has gone to distance themselves from Bush, I don't think further discrediting is needed. :D

Have you ever heard the old song with the lyrics (I think that it was Paula Abdul back in the day):

"...........He's a cold hearted snake........just look into his eyes.........uh oh.......he's been tellin lies.........'

[Qikdraw]

Have you ever heard the old song with the lyrics (I think that it was Paula Abdul back in the day):

"...........He's a cold hearted snake........just look into his eyes.........uh oh.......he's been tellin lies.........'

LOL Yeah I remember that song. Are you trying to get a crappy song stuck into my head like I do to my wife? :D Or are you talking about McCain?

[usuallylurk]

The Palin story (commissioner removed because, allegedly, he wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law) is one that requires investigation ... God Bless the First Amendment. And a system of checks and balances between three different levels of government.

It puts McCain in a tough position -- if he replaces her on the ticket due to ethical issues that may bite her (and McCain) in the butt, some will accuse him of indecisiveness, or being "good ol' wishy-washy John McCain".

Ever been in management -- or been adversely affected by an executive or managerial decision in the workplace? You will note that once a decision on direction has been reached, it almost NEVER will be retracted, lest management "lose face".

It's the same here -- McCain has to make a decision one way or another -- if he dumped her now, he'd look like he exercised bad judgment in her selection (and not checking the background info).

If he keeps her on the ticket, he knows that he will be losing some voters, automatically -- but it's the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, he now has to be thinking -- "We've already had the family values / abstinence thing hit us in the face. We've got Troopergate.

WHAT OTHER SKELETONS ARE IN HER CLOSET???"

[Naturist Mark]

Great video Mark (keep it posted), but is it the one you intended?

It was the wrong video, I've fixed it now. The correct video (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=207980&postcount=7) is now in place.

The Brian Ross video that was erroneously posted is also posted HERE (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=207973&postcount=85).

-Mark

[usmc1]

WHAT OTHER SKELETONS ARE IN HER CLOSET???"

Who knows how many, but this fella down below is just bustin' to get out!

[hm0504]

It was the wrong video, I've fixed it now. The correct video (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=207980&postcount=7) is now in place.

The Brian Ross video that was erroneously posted is also posted HERE (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=207973&postcount=85).

-Mark

I like the part where the RNC 9/11 video says "We will have a President who knows how (to win the war against terror)". I am certainly looking forward to that day when America will have such a President because going without one for the past 8 years has really sucked.

[brazhunter]

The Palin story (commissioner removed because, allegedly, he wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law) is one that requires investigation

The brother-in-law who was a state trooper and moose poacher, tazered his 10 year old step son, 'credible evidence of drinking alcohol while on patrol', numerous discipline problems? Why aren't all the justice-for-all types not questioning the competence of a police administrator who refused to fire such a bad cop?

Oh yeah... that wouldn't suit the political purpose of the moment. :rolleyes:

[usmc1]

The brother-in-law who was a state trooper and moose poacher, tazered his 10 year old step son, 'credible evidence of drinking alcohol while on patrol', numerous discipline problems? Why aren't all the justice-for-all types not questioning the competence of a police administrator who refused to fire such a bad cop?

Oh yeah... that wouldn't suit the political purpose of the moment. :rolleyes:

No it doesn't. Here's why. Even though this guy seems to be a right proper piece of work if all the allegations against him are true. But, taht is not the issue.

The issue is that governor personally intervened in the process, demanding his termination, and then firing the person who refused to fire him on her command. Abuse of power is the issue, not whether the the cop is or is not worthy of keeping his job.

And since this abuse of power has cropped up in Palin's past, and is so deeply rooted in the current Republican administration, it becomes a very, very important issue.

At the very least, Palin should have exercised the good judgement to have distanced herself from the case. But, ah, there you have it, the arrogance of power. We've had eight years of that crap with disastrous consequences and really do not need more.

[brazhunter]

The issue is that governor personally intervened in the process, demanding his termination, and then firing the person who refused to fire him on her command. Abuse of power is the issue, not whether the the cop is or is not worthy of keeping his job.

I'm sorry, I forgot again. She should have done it the Clinton way: fire everybody and start from scratch.

[usmc1]

I'm sorry, I forgot again. She should have done it the Clinton way: fire everybody and start from scratch.
No, she have refrained from involving herself and the office in the process and certtainly should have shown the good judgement of not firing the fellow who refused her. What's so hard to grasp about that?

And so what if someone else did something wrong somewhere else, in another time and place?, it is past absurd to think that excuses her bad judgement or mitigates what appears to be a prima facie case of abuse of power.

You should have had my Junior High School football coach who successfully beat out of us the excuse that we could do it if someone else did it first. Yep, we pretty mcuh had to leave that one on the gradeschool playground.

Around here, we'd say not only does that dog not hunt, it don't even bother to leave out from under the trailer!