War With Iran Has Begun...

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

According to Scott Ritter.

Quote:

The US war with Iran has already begun
By Scott Ritter

Monday 20 June 2005, 8:56

...The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

Read The REST HERE

Now, I know that's AlJazera, so here's a few more references.

Information Clearinghouse

This one points out the importance of Boltons confirmation

International News

Quote:

...John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European Union's engagement with Iran 'doomed to fail'. He is the Bush administration official who led the charge to remove Muhammad al-Baradai from the IAEA.

And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran, asked the Pentagon to be prepared to launch 'robust' military attacks against Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions.

Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any US-brokered sanctions regime against Iran has in getting through the Security Council.

The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is Iran's main supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power programme.

John Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians. Bolton was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May 2002 arms reduction treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both America and Russia by two thirds over a 10 year period.

But that treaty - to Russia's immense displeasure - now appears to have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the Bush administration had built into the treaty language.

John Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions against Iran, which makes the military planning being conducted by the Pentagon all the more relevant.

John Bolton's nomination as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the man who, before a panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association in 1994, said 'There is no such thing as the United Nations.'

For the United States to submit to the will of the Security Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would mean that 'its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future.' ...

And this one from Newsweek Sept 27, 2004 issue indicates War Gaming as taken place:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

Any thoughts? Chances of these reports being correct? Are we at the time when we will find that war with Iran is underway?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,457 • Replies: 76

No top replies

Huh.

I'm bookmarking until I have a chance to read through your links.

By way of bookmark I'll leave this, maybe relevant, maybe not:

Quote:

Goss Claims He Has Idea Where Bin Ladin Is
By Associated Press
Sun Jun 19, 5:32 PM

NEW YORK - The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief.

In an interview with Time for the magazine's June 27 issue, Porter Goss was asked about the progress of the hunt for bin Laden.

"When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play," Goss said. "We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways."

Asked whether that meant he knew where bin Laden is, Goss responded: "I have an excellent idea where he is. What's the next question?"

Goss did not say where he thinks bin Laden is, nor did he specify what country or countries he was referring to when he spoke of foreign sanctuaries. But American officials have long said they believed bin Laden was hiding in rugged mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

0 Replies

I'm sure that George Bush wants war with Iran as much as he wanted war with Iraq and will want war with Syria.

0 Replies

with the opinion of the war in Iraq so low with normal americans right now, I would think that it would be political suicide for the entire republican party and anyone connected to bush in any way to go to war in Iran. We can't afford it.

It would move bush from dickhead to madman IMO.

0 Replies

the iranians have a hell of a lot more going on as a people than the iraqis. for the most part the iranians, or persians as some prefer, are pretty well educated, pro-west and not all that political.

but if we start chucking stuff at 'em, the uninterested or gonna get real interested, real quick.

if bush wants to go to war with iran, he damn well better be at the front of the charge, leading the troops.

yeah, right. as if...

0 Replies

We neither have the funds nor the manpower to fight an additional war. Even the war monger in the White House and his puppet master must be aware of that.

0 Replies

They've made arrangements for that little problem, au1929.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50753&highlight=

0 Replies

the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

If the Bush administration is even a fraction as bad as the libs on this forum suggest.......Ritter would have disappeared long ago. As it is Al Jazeera is the only rag that will publish Ritter's insane accusations.......does that tell you something?

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

If the Bush administration is even a fraction as bad as the libs on this forum suggest.......Ritter would have disappeared long ago. As it is Al Jazeera is the only rag that will publish Ritter's insane accusations.......does that tell you something?

Yep, it does. It tells me that U.S. editors are still afraid of their shadows...

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

If the Bush administration is even a fraction as bad as the libs on this forum suggest.......Ritter would have disappeared long ago. As it is Al Jazeera is the only rag that will publish Ritter's insane accusations.......does that tell you something?

Yep, it does. It tells me that U.S. editors are still afraid of their shadows...

Now that must certainly be the most logical conclusion.

0 Replies

Our news media only reports on the important and pressing issues of the day. Wacko Jacko's trial, T Sheivo,the antics of Paris Hilton, who is screwing who in Hollywood and etc.

0 Replies

I guess only time will tell but by then we could already be in it and people will say we broke it and have to finish it. The Bush administration will just say that the insurgents from Iraq are coming from Iran so they were just expanding their efforts in Iraq rather than starting a new war. I suppose Syria will be next. Meanwhile we have to respect sovereign nations when it comes to the mastermind of 9/11.

sovereign nations

0 Replies

Ritter was right before, so while I won't give 100% credence to his claim, I think it deserves watching until we hear more.

One of the links I posted made it very clear why Boltons confirmation / placement on UN is so important to Bush, claiming France and Russia (necessary votes) won't go along with an Iran War and Bolton needs to upset the UN cart for the Iran part of the Bush agenda.

Since the Senate was unble to get the required votes for Bolton yesterday, word is that Bush will appoint him during the July 4 holiday. Bolton will then be able to "serve" at least through January 2007.

0 Replies

Bolton, the wrong man for the position. That has become an American affliction. Reference. The White house.

0 Replies

I think we have seen in the recent past, these obscure bits of news arise from these so called "rags" into the MSM.
This is not to say that the MSM doesn't pick up on it, but I think their reporting tactics have employed more diligence in light of Rathergate and Newsweek.
It'll come, and when it's not Al-Jazeera, but CNN, you will still whistle the same familiar tune....

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

If the Bush administration is even a fraction as bad as the libs on this forum suggest.......Ritter would have disappeared long ago. As it is Al Jazeera is the only rag that will publish Ritter's insane accusations.......does that tell you something?

Yep, it does. It tells me that U.S. editors are still afraid of their shadows...

Now that must certainly be the most logical conclusion.

The best that we have heard so far...

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I guess only time will tell but by then we could already be in it and people will say we broke it and have to finish it. The Bush administration will just say that the insurgents from Iraq are coming from Iran so they were just expanding their efforts in Iraq rather than starting a new war. I suppose Syria will be next. Meanwhile we have to respect sovereign nations when it comes to the mastermind of 9/11.

sovereign nations

Hasn't stopped ole George before....

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

If the Bush administration is even a fraction as bad as the libs on this forum suggest.......Ritter would have disappeared long ago.

well?? seems to be the sop. sliming the bejeezus out of anyone that comes out against the cheney whi... er, i mean the bush whitehouse is immediately st upon by the goon squad. mark my words, this is gonna pop up on the hannity / limberger shows. just as soon as the official talking points come in.

o'neill. clark. ritter (the first time), wilson. plame, cbs. newsweek. deep throat.etc.

"oh he's bitter about not getting a job." bla,bla,bla.

and some people just keep on accepting whatever fodder is hand fed to them.

i don't. i even questioned a lot of what clinton did. so there... Laughing

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
the slimer squad will be after ritter (again) any time now.

If the Bush administration is even a fraction as bad as the libs on this forum suggest.......Ritter would have disappeared long ago.

well?? seems to be the sop. sliming the bejeezus out of anyone that comes out against the cheney whi... er, i mean the bush whitehouse is immediately st upon by the goon squad. mark my words, this is gonna pop up on the hannity / limberger shows. just as soon as the official talking points come in.

o'neill. clark. ritter (the first time), wilson. plame, cbs. newsweek. deep throat.etc.

"oh he's bitter about not getting a job." bla,bla,bla.

and some people just keep on accepting whatever fodder is hand fed to them.

i don't. i even questioned a lot of what clinton did. so there...

and some people just keep on accepting whatever fodder is hand fed to them...

0 Replies

War With Iran Has Begun...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know