WAS COVERT ATTEMPT TO NUKE IRAN FOILED BY LEAK?

I'm close to the point where I might wish that Cheney and the other psychotics in his circle actually do launch an attack on Iran. Perhaps it is time for the empire to collapse into its own black heart.

The world is upside down. Chris Rock said:

"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy,
the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese,
the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of
arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most
powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon."

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

Advocate wrote:

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

We've been talking. The time for talking is over. Now it is time to either bomb Iran, or commit to a massive buildup of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

If any comparison to Hitler is valid, it would be to point out the folly of pursuing negotiations when it is clear the other side has no interest in peace, and is merely using the negotiations to buy time to build up their forces until they are ready to strike.

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

Iran has every right to be pissed off with America.

Read on, and try to put yourself in their shoes.

March 5 marks the anniversary of the 1967 death of former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, named man of the year in 1951 by Time magazine and now a forgotten name in American politics. In 1951 Iranians rallied behind their democratically elected prime minister in his struggle to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British monopoly on Iranian oil. In addition, Mossadegh would make no promises to ally Iran with the United States in a time of Cold War polarization. In 1951 the British government imposed a worldwide embargo of Iranian oil and banned the export of goods to Iran, while taking its case to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The court found that Iran was doing nothing illegal, yet the US government continued to support the British embargo.

In 1953, under orders from President Eisenhower, the CIA organized a military coup that overthrew the government. Soon Mohammed Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house-arrest for life. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, backed by the United States, took his place and held on to power for the next 25 years. The thriving democracy that existed in Iran was crushed.

On the economic front, the Shah denationalized Iran's oil industry, 60% of which went to American firms. Politically, he was so brutally effective with his US-trained SAVAK secret police that almost all of the democratic and secular opposition was eliminated. When the revolution finally ousted the autocratic Shah in 1979, the new regime was soon dominated by hard-lined Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

For years, the US denied its involvement in the 1953 coup, but in 2000 the Clinton administration finally issued a statement that recognized the US role in the failure of democracy in Iran. In a speech before the American-Iranian Council in March 2000, then Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted, "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-21.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

We've been talking. The time for talking is over. Now it is time to either bomb Iran, or commit to a massive buildup of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

If any comparison to Hitler is valid, it would be to point out the folly of pursuing negotiations when it is clear the other side has no interest in peace, and is merely using the negotiations to buy time to build up their forces until they are ready to strike.

This is why people like you shouldn't run the country.

From today's LA Times:

Quote:

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

'The time for talking is over.' What bullsh*t. It's like you think you are inside some sort of movie or something.

Cycloptichorn

Their programme is not illegal in Iran.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

We've been talking. The time for talking is over. Now it is time to either bomb Iran, or commit to a massive buildup of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

If any comparison to Hitler is valid, it would be to point out the folly of pursuing negotiations when it is clear the other side has no interest in peace, and is merely using the negotiations to buy time to build up their forces until they are ready to strike.

This is why people like you shouldn't run the country.

From today's LA Times:

Quote:

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

'The time for talking is over.' What bullsh*t. It's like you think you are inside some sort of movie or something.

Cycloptichorn

No BS. The negotiators have had their chance. And even after the time for negotiations had ended, they were still given even more time to make peace.

But now it is finally time for the negotiators to pack up and go home. Now it is time to drop bombs on Iran.

I'm guessing we bomb around February. That'll give the arms guys time to put the finishing touches on those new 30,000-pound bunker busters.

That'll give the arms guys time to put the finishing touches on those new 30,000-pound bunker busters.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

We've been talking. The time for talking is over. Now it is time to either bomb Iran, or commit to a massive buildup of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

If any comparison to Hitler is valid, it would be to point out the folly of pursuing negotiations when it is clear the other side has no interest in peace, and is merely using the negotiations to buy time to build up their forces until they are ready to strike.

This is why people like you shouldn't run the country.

From today's LA Times:

Quote:

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

'The time for talking is over.' What bullsh*t. It's like you think you are inside some sort of movie or something.

Cycloptichorn

No BS. The negotiators have had their chance. And even after the time for negotiations had ended, they were still given even more time to make peace.

But now it is finally time for the negotiators to pack up and go home. Now it is time to drop bombs on Iran.

I'm guessing we bomb around February. That'll give the arms guys time to put the finishing touches on those new 30,000-pound bunker busters.

'the negotiators had their chance.' Again with the movie line.

Why now? What's the rush to attack?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

We've been talking. The time for talking is over. Now it is time to either bomb Iran, or commit to a massive buildup of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

If any comparison to Hitler is valid, it would be to point out the folly of pursuing negotiations when it is clear the other side has no interest in peace, and is merely using the negotiations to buy time to build up their forces until they are ready to strike.

This is why people like you shouldn't run the country.

From today's LA Times:

Quote:

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

'The time for talking is over.' What bullsh*t. It's like you think you are inside some sort of movie or something.

Cycloptichorn

No BS. The negotiators have had their chance. And even after the time for negotiations had ended, they were still given even more time to make peace.

But now it is finally time for the negotiators to pack up and go home. Now it is time to drop bombs on Iran.

I'm guessing we bomb around February. That'll give the arms guys time to put the finishing touches on those new 30,000-pound bunker busters.

'the negotiators had their chance.' Again with the movie line.

Why now? What's the rush to attack?

There is no rush. Everyone has been more than patient, and has given the negotiators more than enough time to make peace.

Now is the time to bomb because it will be too late to bomb once Iran has all their illegal nuclear weapons constructed.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

We've been talking. The time for talking is over. Now it is time to either bomb Iran, or commit to a massive buildup of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

If any comparison to Hitler is valid, it would be to point out the folly of pursuing negotiations when it is clear the other side has no interest in peace, and is merely using the negotiations to buy time to build up their forces until they are ready to strike.

This is why people like you shouldn't run the country.

From today's LA Times:

Quote:

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

'The time for talking is over.' What bullsh*t. It's like you think you are inside some sort of movie or something.

Cycloptichorn

No BS. The negotiators have had their chance. And even after the time for negotiations had ended, they were still given even more time to make peace.

But now it is finally time for the negotiators to pack up and go home. Now it is time to drop bombs on Iran.

I'm guessing we bomb around February. That'll give the arms guys time to put the finishing touches on those new 30,000-pound bunker busters.

'the negotiators had their chance.' Again with the movie line.

Why now? What's the rush to attack?

There is no rush. Everyone has been more than patient, and has given the negotiators more than enough time to make peace.

Now is the time to bomb because it will be too late to bomb once Iran has all their illegal nuclear weapons constructed.

First, it isn't illegal for them to build nukes if they want.

Second, why can't we bomb them once they have them, exactly?

It is interesting that Rudi has surrounded himself with hawkish neocons, some of whom advised Bush to go into Iraq. Most of these support an attack on Iran. This is all the more reason to oppose Rudi.