THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

It's not the US responsibility to control or limit terrorism around the world. That responsibility belongs to the world community. Five percent of the world population can't control the growing terrorist organizations and terrorism around the world. We don't have the military or the treasure to handle it.

Errm, okay. The invasion of Iraq wasn't to ?'stop oppression' (whatever they say)…



…and the US economic foreign policy still oppresses much of the third world (ie. keeps a huge percentage of the third world in absolute poverty).

So your argument is to send an oppressor (of many countries) to teach another oppressor (of a single country) a lesson? And then repeat this sequence over and over again?

The priorities of this seem all wrong.







And that lack of certainty is the problem with your position. You are willing to kill millions, with no certainty of a better outcome.

As for Iraq - 5 years on, and for the Iraqi's there is no end in sight.

And after the invasion has withdrawn, the only thing that may save Iraq from US imposed poverty, is it's oil. Other countries of your proposed crusade will not be so lucky.

Putin Orders Russian Military Forces To Attack US Forces During Iran Invasion ?
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Russian Military Analysts are reporting today that President Putin has issued orders to the Russian Interior Ministry to ?'immediately' dispatch Spetsnaz (Special Forces) troops to Iran to protect ?'vital' Russian assets, including the Bushehr Nuclear power plant.

These reports state that this order from President Putin to the Interior Ministry includes the phrase, "against any and all hostile forces", and which analysts state is a direct threat to US and Israeli Forces currently massing for their planned attack and invasion of Iran.

According to these reports, President Putin was ?'strongly' lobbied by Saudi Arabia to create a ?'buffer' against further US aggression in the Gulf Region, and which the Saudi King in his talks with President Putin this week stated his belief that the United States after attacking Iran would then set its sites upon his oil rich nation.

The fears of Saudi Arabia about an American takeover of their oil fields was further confirmed this week with the pronouncements of US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to end US oil purchases from Venezuela, and which would leave only the Saudi Kingdom able to make up the difference in lost oil to the Americans.

President Putin in his speech before the Munich Security Conference this past week further warned the United States against its planned military expansion, and as we can read:

"It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia - we - are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's - and precisely in today's - world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today's world - and we just started to discuss this - is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

And with which results?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions..... http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=14433

<<"It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.>>

We have met the enemy and it is us.

'Proof doesn't matter on Iran'
Bush: Can't prove Iran moved Iraq weapons; http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Bush_says_Iran_supplying_weapons_to_0214.html

Bush: Iran supplying weapons in Iraq
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
49 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he's convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can't prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran.

More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is protecting U.S. troops against the lethal new threat. "I'm going to do something about it," Bush said.


I was listening to Charlie Rose talking with Iran's UN representative. He pointed out that the weapons found has markings in English, and the dates on the weapons are written in American English style. It shows the date as MM/DD/YY whereas all other countries show DD/MM/YY. It's obvious that Bush is preparing for war, because he's sent some ships to the Persian Gulf.

It's the Saudis, Stupid!

by Cliff Schecter

Ok, can we put aside the Bush junta-inspired mendacity eruptions (slightly different than Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions," in that mendacity eruptions actually end lives) to try and ignite war in Iran with those shady forces who are responsible for only 8% of the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.


I know this will give the good Reverend John Hagee the kind of stiffy most of us could only pull off after a quart of Viagra mixed with Hillbilly Heroin--or as it is now known in bar-speak, a Limbaugh with a Haggard twist--but for the rest of us, can we shout from the rooftops "Enough with the fraudulent war justifications!"

Haven't we all learned from the last public relations rollout for a war of choice? Well, not David Brooks. But he's dumber than lead paint on Lindsay Lohan, so what he gurgles up out of his craven esophagus is of no consequence.

Yet, for those of us living in the strange land of lucidity, can we please all get this very simple message out before we experience Neocon Debacle II: Electric Boogalo

1) Over 90% of of the attacks that are killing U.S soldiers in Iraq are SUNNI inspired. They are, like, a whole different group of people than the Shia, Mr. Bush. And supported by your three-minutes-in-the-closet friends and financial benefactors the Saudis.

2) 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

3) Bin Laden - yeah, Saudi not Iranian (and still at large, why is that?).

4) Say 'hi' to Bandar Bush for us.

5) Saudi Arabia, not Iran, was one of the three countries that recognized the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan--yeah that one.

6) Tell your brother to lay off the Thai hookers.

7) Saudi Arabia sought nuclear weapons, and may still be doing so.

So does all that compute Mr. Bush? Iran has some very bad men in their leadership, true. But they don't begin to compare to your friends, the Saudis. Not that you ever cared about going after the real enemy.

Oh, yeah, and it's "nuclear" moron.

Although Saudi Arabia appears to be one of the reasons that Bush went to war with Iraq, I doubt it's the Saudi's have anything to do with Bush wanting to start a war with Iran.

Bush did name Iran part of the Axis of Evil, so it's possible he's had the intention of attacking them for some time.

One of the 'beautiful' things about his claim that Iran is sponsoring the 'insurgency' is that Iran can't prove it isn't...

...although I did notice an article recently saying that weapons were showing up in 'insurgent' hands that looked rather like they had been manufactured in America.