Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Obviously, i don't agree. A conventional attack would be ludicrous, and almost guaranteed to be ineffective, while assuring the hostility of the Persians, and further marginalizing any group in Iran who wants to engage the west. Frankly, i trust neither the honesty nor the competence of this administration, based on the bloody fiasco in Iraq.

We continue to disagree, and maybe our grandchildren will be able to finally decide who was wrong, and who was right. I wouldn't want to bet on it for fear that you might disturb my final rest to say "I told you so".

I think this Iran thing, as dangerous as it is, is a storm in a teacup. I don't believe anything effective will be done, and that Iran will have nuclear weapons in a few years. I hope that by that time the risk of Iran using their newfound power to further endanger world peace will have declined somewhat. I hope that they will not destabilize the region any more than it already is. Perhaps Iran will cease calling for the annhilation of Israel and the destruction of the United States. Once Iran has a small nuclear arsenal, they will become responsible world citizens. You see, I too can dream the impossible dream ... and sincerly hope that it comes true ... though I can't help doubting it.

"Disingenuous", me? I don't think so, but law school did teach me the value of being careful of how words may be taken, and how easily misunderstanding of meaning can be.

Well, i don't think that i misunderstood your meaning, i simply objected to the continuing use of terms which entailed petitio principi assumptions about the situation--chiefly, that there is any real possibility for the United States to take effective action. I don't deny the possibility, but i do consider it highly improbable, and am therefore unwilling to discuss from a position which assumes that.

The problem i have is that the PNAC has a death grip on the ideological policy of this administration, and they have, in my opinion, dangerous and naive ideas about what the United States can do, let alone what they should do. Iraq was on the agenda long before the Eleventh of September, and Iran has long been a bête noire of what is essentially a Reaganite crew.

I've never suggested that getting a nuclear arsenal would make the Persians responsible international citizens--so if that is your imputation, it is a strawman. I have simply pointed out all along that absent invasion and occupation, there is likely nothing we can do.

This is about Dick Cheney and his initial desire to complete the conquest of Iraq in 1992. He wrote a paper about it. This is about PNAC and control of the Middle East. This is about neo-cons and their New World Order. This is about money, this is about greed, this is about power, and it is about control.

Anon

The New Pearl HarborThe New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, by David R. Griffin,foreword by Richard Falk.
www.interlinkbooks.com/New_Pearl_Harbor.html - 4k -

U.S. problems with the radical Islamic government have more to do with President Carter's foreign policy, than any administration since that time.

No, I don't think either of us believe that Iran is going to become a responsible world citizen in the foreseeable future, no matter what action the United States takes, or doesn't take.

Anon and Blueflame seem convinced that we conservatives are engaged in a conspiracy for world conquest, and the subjugation of the peace loving Peoples of Southwest Asia. Only Republican greed for oil riches and personal animosity toward Muslims are needed to explain why 9/11 happened. It saddens me when you apparently buy into the idea that the Republican Party and conservatives are in the grip of Right-wingers who are just as crazy as those leftist loonies who believe that 9/11 was a CIA operation, and that the Jew, FDR conspired in the attack on Pearl Harbor so that he could get the United States into a war with Hitler. I know you have better sense than that, and I would suppose you know I have better sense than to believe the rantings of the Right.

I advise you to visit the PNAC web site, and look at the list of founding members--which includes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and a host of others whose names you may or many not recognize, but which also figure in the list of employees of this administration. It is indulging no hysterical paranoia to point this out.

I've visited the site, but do not find it as alarming as you seem to. I don't agree with the entire platform, but do not find in it that looks to me as if it would certainly lead to the loss of our Constitutional system, to a desire to conquer the world, or bring about the extinction of the species. I don't see domination by Christian fanatics, or the "love war for its own sake", embodied in the PNAC materials. I can see why some on the Left might think differently, and they certainly love interpreting anything to do with the PNAC in the worst light. Some apparently regard the PNAC as the modern equivilent of the Elders of Zion!

There's no seperating the PNAC from this administration. They are the administration. And they have accomplished their objectives as written in Rebuilding America's Defenses including a new Pearl Harbor and a war in Iraq. Mission certainly Accomplished so far. Next phase would be war with Iran and Syria as also written. Considering their success in implementing their blueprint thus far I have little doubt they'll be escalting their war into Iran soon. Overwhelmingly against the will of the human race.

It is grossly unfair of you to impute such attitudes to me. I have simply pointed out that war with Iraq and the establishment of permanent military bases in southwest Asia has been a part of the PNAC agenda for nearly ten years, since its founding, and well before this administration got into office. You erect an army of strawmen if you addressed those egregious hysterias to me.

Setanta,

I'm sorry, but I wasn't saying that you are among those who believe that the PNAC is evil incarnate. Some do, and my characterization of some of the hysteria sounded by opponents of the current Administration are frequently seen right here on the A2K threads. We've both seen them, but I sincerely doubt that either of us will be taken in by wild accusations. Far from throwing hysterical charges and imputations at you Sentanta, I keep hoping that your historical objectivity will kickin and you will be reborn a conservative dedicated to Federalist Principles.

Here is the PNAC Statement of Principles:

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten 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.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

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. "

I find very little in that to object to. I see nothing wrong in calling for a strong America willing to exercise leadership in a world hungary for liberty. Whats wrong with espousing American prinicples abroad? In fact, it seems to me that the Bush Administration hasn't been all that "true" to the principles of the PNAC. I see nothing in this document that calls for war with Iraq, stealing oil from Arab states, establishing US miitary garrisons in a neo-colonial empire, or that suggests that conservatives are any less caring than liberals. Is there a Left-Liberal statement of principles? If there is, do all liberals and Democrats adhere to strictly to it?

No hope, Ash . . . i never trusted that old cuss John Adams, especially after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act . . . no Federalist i . . .

I have highlighted some of your statements in blue, and have provided a minimum number of links that supports that these statements are indeed representative of the Republican Party and the decades that they have schemed on Middle East and the control thereof.

You need to round out your reading a bit Ash! If you question the sources, that's fine, however I notice that these are well indexed, and have in-depth resource materials which are notated. I invite you to disprove anything that these links point out. Matter of fact, I would LOVE for you to disprove any of it ... if you can! I somehow doubt that you can, or that you will even try.


ANALYSIS 1992:FIRST DRAFT OF A GRAND STRATEGY
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/themes/1992.html

EXCERPTS FROM 1992 DRAFT "DEFENSE PLANNING STRATEGY"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

"Rebuilding America's Defenses" - A Summary
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

HALLIBURTON'S DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT
http://www.sheeple.net/Cheney.htm]Haliiburton/Cheney Greed


This isn't even starters. I haven't even touched it. This is the tip of the iceberg. I'm tired of having to show these every time a conservative starts whining about how the warmongers, power-hungry, and greed hungry are so maligned by the horrible left.

I think it's time for a Topic which outlines the decades long quest of the Middle East by these slime. A blow by blow of all the bullshit we have done ... indeed, decades long terrorist activity by our own lovely country!

I'll start on it tonight.

Anon

ALEX MASSIE
IN WASHINGTON

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. ...

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.

http://help.lockergnome.com/lofiversion/index.php/t44027.html

The pity is we have had to wait for Fukuyama and others to turn (to me, to the obvious) and have not had engaging people in place to speak what was obvious...

thinking of cats and rats, although there are, of course, some rats among the cats and some cats among the rats.

The pity is the disjuncture of the analytic number among the press or quoted by the press, and the exposition of such on the short time media outlets.

A truly terrible piece of legislation. At the time, there was the foolish hope that newspapers, and pamphleteers might be legally required to tell the truth. Another strange notion (to us) is the idea held by both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans that their Party alone should occupy sole power for perpetuity. We revere them and are awe-stricken by their wisdom, and then are startled to find they were just as vulnerable to shallow and wishful thinking as we are today.

Poor, Poor John Adams. All of his many accomplishments and sacrifices in public service to the nation, the new republic, cast into darkness by the shadow of Washington. Vain and proud of his Republican plainness. Reluctant to seize the limelight, yet hurt almost intensely when the light wasn't on himself, or when the light was unflattering. A blue-nosed puritan who disapproved on sin and laziness, but whose personal sins were small and for whom the term laziness would never be attached.

John Adams, the Second President (Oh, how that must have hurt in private), who tried to run his Office with a Cabinet not of his own choosing. A Cabinet who were his enemies. Betrayed by Hamilton. Attacked in the press by agents of his old colleague Jefferson. Here was a man who dedicated his whole life to serving his country, and in what should have been his greatest moment he is lost. Poor, Poor John Adams. He may have had a thin skin and a short temper, but should that cancel the good that he did? Adams and the Federalists lost the election of 1800, to Burr and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. It was one of this was the first election where the presence of Washington was absent. Adams fully expected to have the full backing of the Party he helped found for re-election. What he got was Hamilton working all out for his defeat, even if it meant throwing the election to the opposition ... which it did.

The Sedition Act was intended to require publishers to print the truth when writing about the President and his Administration. What it turned out to be was a whip to punish anyone who disagreed in the slightest degree with the government. It may have gotten some publishers to be more careful with their how they slanted their stories, but they found ways around the law. Some became instant heros by breaking the law, and then bragging about it. Some drunken louts were arrested for mouthing off in a Tavern, and they became famous victims of oppression. It didn't take long for folks to figure out that the law was a terrible failure, but it was too late. The Alien and Sedition Acts became one of the deciding issues in the 1800 election. The odium connected with this turkey so weakened the Federalists that they never really recovered.

The nation survived its first transition from the ruling Party to the opposition. The two Parties had accused one another of the vilest motives and behavior. Votes were bought and ballots lost. Some were betting that the Republic couldn't survive being led by the Democratic-Republicans for four years. Some urged Adams to hold on to his chair by any means, but he did the right thing and retired to Braintree. The nation survived the meddling of Jefferson and his mob, and was even made better for their adminstration. Unfortunately, the Democrats pretty much held on to the reigns of Federal government until the Lincoln administration.

Quotes from the retired generals who are calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: Member of the genius PNAC.

What Eisenhower warned us about. Yes or no?


"We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.


"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results." - Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.


"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.


"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission." - Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command.


"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.


"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

That what OUR Generals are telling us about one of the PNAC architects.

f4f,

You seemed to ignore this part...



That means that they would hit back,not hit first.
There is a difference.

WASHINGTON, July 25 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- Halliburton announced on Friday that its KBR division, responsible for carrying out Pentagon contracts, experienced a 284 percent increase in operating profits during the second quarter of this year.



"The Pentagon has provided preferential treatment to Halliburton on a number of occasions, including the concealment from the public of critical reports by military auditors."

"Halliburton's earnings announcement comes on the heels of new reports showing the Iraq and Afghan wars have already cost U.S. taxpayers $314 billion and that another ten years of war will cost $700 billion.

In another coup for Halliburton, a federal judge this month decided that whistleblowers may not sue U.S. companies for fraud if payment for services was Halliburton announces 284 perce.ems made in Iraqi, not U.S., money. Halliburton was paid over $1 billion in Iraqi oil money during the first 15 months of the occupation. The judge's ruling means the False Claims Act cannot be used to offer large rewards to corporate insiders who reveal wrongdoing or overcharges for services. The law is considered America's most successful deterrent against contractor fraud, but the judge's decision will help Halliburton and other contractors avoid tough scrutiny in Iraq."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAL20050804&articleId=801
__________________________________________

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades."

Wow! Can you compose one post without resorting to a strawman argument.