Israel, United States say Iran an imminent threat

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=cdf3254c2759bd33

Israel, United States say Iran an imminent threat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Saturday 29th January, 2005 (UPI)

Israel and the United States have begun efforts to recruit European Union officials to their efforts to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Israel's Knesset and the U.S. Congress have begun a joint effort to convince European Union parliamentarians that Iran's nuclear weapons program is an imminent threat, the Middle East Newsline reported Saturday. The Knesset and Congress plan to send representatives to meetings in Brussels with EU parliamentarians on defense and security committees.

The program began in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Members of the committee have discussed the effort with leading members of Congress, and Sen. Jon Kyle, a Republican from Nevada, has been appointed to lead the Congress-Knesset panel
more...

They need the EU's permission and I don't think thats going to happen!!!

But wait they have their own news sources. Do you think the EU believes FAUX 'NEWS"?

just fine now that they voted. :eyes:

And as a rule of thumb, consider that if Jon Kyl is for it, it is a BIG ASS mistake

Bush/Sharon/Blair don't need anyone's permission, but the thugs do want a veneer of respectablility. If they can't get "permission" (really agreement), they'll still do the deed.

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=194


http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

Seems our dealings with the EU consist of the US making arrogant demands in a decidedly un-diplomatic way. The EU is weary of the bullying, and they are eager to flex their own muscle, earned through overseas aid and diplomacy rather than bashing folks over the head.

I predict, just like you, that they will politely tell the US envoy to stuff it. Besides, the EU is a large supporter of Palestine. I don't think what Israel wants will hold much water with them.

We had the chance to show the EU we could deal with them as an equal, and we blew it. Now, despite all our isolationist saber-rattling, the US needs the EU to make anything happen. So that means it's not going to. :P

Karma. She sure is a bitch.

RV

the christians should start asking..

steal their oil so they can drive their giant SUVs and watch NASCAR cars go around in a circle.

Get to the bottom of it and most Americans think it's OK to steal their oil.

:o

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Iraqnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Evil Iran;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

THE FIRST ONE on your block
To have your beloved child come home in a box!

Let's here it for endless war and AEI intellectuals spinning propaganda that so sweet and confusing ... one needs wings to rise above the poisoned quicksand of war drums and nationalistic fervor.

My son now has permanent residence in a VA Cemetery.

He did NOT die for America, he died because the fifth columnist NeoCons wanted him to do Israel's dirty work.

The anger I have at Israel and the assholes at AIPAC and their various fronts like Social Democrats USA, AEI, Cato, etc. who buy off American politicians has no end.

please PM me and tell me more about your son and what happened?

Don't be fooled. Israel is, was, and will always be the pawn of the real power brokers in the U.S. I am pissed of as well at Israel's role in all this, but I'm not naive to deny who is really calling the shots here, and it isn't Israel. Israel ultimately will do what is in the best interests of the U.S.

....notes since 1948.

"I want to be the first kid on my block with a confirmed kill..."

The US doesn't need to recruit them the are they only ones on board. The EU lead this.

Makes me wonder how straight the facts are in the REST of the story.

Now why was that...hmmm, let me think.


If I recall correctly...It was because of their - NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM!!!

Except - they didn't have a nuclear weapons program.

Nor would they take on America without a good reason. I can't even begin to find a reason for Iran to attack Israel or America other than religious hatred.

They know that * has aptly linked Iran with many terrorist sympathizing organizations around the world (one of *'s few moments of clarity).

They KNOW that any NUKE (or mini = dirty bomb) would be interpreted as having a return address stamped on it "Tehran, Iran."

Yes, we have a right to be skeptical of all that Iran does and investigate all links to international terrorism. However, I submit we are far much safer to NOT either bomb or invade Iran. Why? Because that would be interpreted as a "free pass" for all those MANY radical associations linked with Iran's leadership to unleash the true DOGS OF WAR and onset of the rapture.

Remember, Russia has NOT accounted for all it's loose NUKES. Whatever loose control the truly maniacal forces in Iran's government has will serve to reign in the terrorist tributarys as long as we do NOT attack Iran.

Our Neo-Cons are shameless warmongers. We will be in a true world of sh*t if we do any militaristic action against Iran. The links Iran has with terror organizations are VERY REAL but should be weeded out via COVERT ops. in cooperation with "what's left" of our European allies.

Damn these SICK bastards we know as the Neo-Conservatives!?!

This is a blatant lie. The people saying this are an imminent danger to the world. They are insane.

illegal flight excursions Israel likes to make into their airspace. Or Sharon saying he would like to see all Muslims dead. Nope, can't think of a thing.

Pakistan, Russia, China, India and every other country with nukes in the region. I can't understand why the Iranians would feel they need nukes.

there will be up-rising in the middle east against US and Israel. I would not be surprise, China and Russia will join back the middle east against us. There may possibility of World War 3.

the US and Israel take out her sites with impunity. They might block the Strait of Hormuz and/or send troops into Iraq to further muck things up.

this would be the most likely scenario if the U.S. attacks Iran.:scared:

Is war the Republinazis idea of population control or something? :grr:

This is bs. This is bs. This is bs.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black. The US is an imminent threat.

threat ever since the day the military industrial complex wove it's dirty little tentacles into the government so deeply that it is impossible to differentiate one from the other. It's only natural.

AWK.. Polly want a bang bang?

the corporate cabal and the Likud Party.

Not all the U.S. and Israel believe that Iran should be blown away - or take over.

There are innocents in the US and Israel who oppose JINSA, PNAC, AEI, and all the other ME imperialist acronyms, plus the corporate cabal and the Likud Party.

4-time endorser of PNAC statements.

I don't think it means what they think it does, maybe someone should tell them. :P

in TEXAS!

The right-wing theocrats took over Iran 26 years ago.
Funny how the threat becomes "imminent" 2 weeks into Bush's second term.

don't we. We all know that they are fungible according to the sec of war.

More illegal occupations, more death, more destruction, more hatred of America from around the globe...


This is what you wanted, America. Time to reap what you sow.

and they still invaded!- god save us.

ugly bit of stretching and twisting the truth??

for a similarly titled article except for Iraq in place of Iran?

Hmmm.

Can even the right-wing bozoes fall for this?

Bomb Iran they just want the EU's OK!!!

and why would the EU OK it. When they know that US will do it anyway without their approval. and like we have been nice to the EU

Ya Bush Politics is getting ugly!!!

If the U.S. REALLY wanted to help resolve the Iranian nuclear "crisis" then it would join in the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the Europeans. In his most recent New Yorker article, Seymour Hersh says that by refusing to take part in those negotiations the U.S. is guaranteeing that those negotiations fail. Then Bush can say, "See, I told you this diplomacy crap doesn't work."


http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iran15e_20041215.htm

U.S. rejects Iran nuclear talks

Germany, France, Britain take the lead
December 15, 2004

BY ALI AKBAR DAREINI
ASSOCIATED PRESS

TEHRAN, Iran -- The United States rejected a suggestion by Iran on Tuesday for talks about that country's nuclear program, which Washington alleges is aimed at secretly acquiring an atomic bomb.

Germany, Britain and France launched new negotiations with Iran on Monday to try to persuade the government in Tehran to abandon any nuclear program that could be used for weapons. In return, aid would be offered to build up its civilian energy program.

Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi told a news conference Monday that talks with Washington could also be possible. The United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran after militant students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

"If negotiations are on the basis of equality and mutual respect in the same way we are talking to Europeans now, there is no reason not to talk to others," Kharrazi said when asked whether Tehran was also willing to talk to the United States about its nuclear program.

The White House made plain the United States has no intention of joining the talks.

"When it comes to Iran, we are very supportive of the efforts by our European friends to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. And we stay in close contact with our European friends on their discussions and the progress that they have made," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "What we believe is important is that, ultimately, Iran agree to end its nuclear weapons program, not just suspend it."

<snip>

In his book Just and Unjust Wars, social scientist Michael Walzer suggests guidelines. For example: A just war must be a last resort. The war's purpose must be just. A just war shouldn't cost more in human loss than the value of its ends. To date, the Bush administration hasn't produced evidence that a war on Iraq would meet any of those criteria.

Regarding preemptive strikes, Walzer says another nation is an imminent threat only if its army is "recognizably hostile, ready for war and fixed in a posture of attack." Absent those conditions, any perceived threat is "prospective and imaginary . . . Hence the moral necessity of rejecting any attack that is merely preventive in character."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1755.htm

c'mon all you bush mommies and daddies... uncle george and uncle dick want your babies...

(sarcasm and bitterness off)

Georgie the Second, I am, I am
I started a war in Iraq-nam
Just like my pappy
George the Fir-r-rst

catchy tune!

Iraq? Having been crassly designated as a member of the axis of evil, it is small wonder the country is building nuclear power. They can easily see what happened to rung one on the axis, Iraq. Are Americans really this brainwashed?

They have 200-300 nukes pointed at all their neighbors and none of their neighbors are allowed to defend themselves from this threat.

"Behind an imminent threat
Imminent threat - It's a put on."

:kick:

Maybe...


Iran's nuclear program not an 'imminent threat': ElBaradei

WASHINGTON (AFP) Sep 19, 2004

Iran's nuclear program does not present an "imminent threat," but Tehran must take measures to reassure the international community about its intentions, UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday.

"I hope Iran will hear that call from the international community. It is really in the interest of Iran to build confidence," ElBaradei told CNN's "Late Edition."

He spoke one day after the International Atomic Energy Agencyadopted a resolution demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and report sensitive nuclear activities.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040919192935.lazuopbq.html

========================================================

The new threat: Iran
CIA forecasts launch of ICBM in next few years

Since the end of the cold war, the U.S. has decreased the capabilities of our armed forces based on the belief that significant threats to our national security no longer existed. Now as America stands less ready, an old foe poses a new threat.

Iran is a major military force in the region and is at the center of an emerging realignment of powers in the Middle East. It has stated that if it felt it was threatened, it would close the Gulf to shipping, cutting off the flow of oil to the world. Iran maintains a small but growing number of modern and extremely quiet Russian-made Kilo-class diesel submarines, a fleet of naval vessels including mine-layers and has installed anti-ship missiles at strategic points at the Straits of Hormuz. These resources give it the inherent ability to make good on its threat.


"Despite international efforts to curtail the flow of critical technologies and equipment, Tehran continues to seek fissile material and technology for weapons development and has set of an elaborate system of military and civilian organizations to support its effort." --Central Intelligence Agency, unclassified report to Congress, August 2000

** I don't know about you, but this is giving me a headache...

"imminent" was part of the debate, wasn't it? Then Shrub and Rummy denied every using that exact term when it was found they had sold a pack of lies.

Where the HELL did you get that? No one ever said that!!

Does anyone think Chimpy needs the Eu's permission. This is the same reason we used to invade Iraq, WM D's now it's Iran's turn. The only problem is Russia has to much money tied up in Iran to sit by and do nothing.

++++++:nuke:++++++

like one where the enemy shoots back in something other than an absolutely powerless act of impotence. Iran might not like getting missle attacked.

Does the last time Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war (Iraq), also give him a free pass everywhere else, like Iran? Or does he have to go ask Congress again? I think that is all important.
I don't think anyone--even Republicans--are going to fall for the same trick again. Especially those that are coming up for re-election. Iraq is NOT a popular war!
Besides, we have nothing left to give, no troops, no money. I don't think even Bush is stupid enough to try to re-institute the draft while dumping all domestic programs at the same time.

But when the time comes, Republicans and probably at least half of all Democrats will fall all over themselves in a rush to give Bush any legal fig-leaf he may need. Although I think he will argue that the "war on terrorism" law passed by congress gives him a blank check to invade whatever country he desires, whenever he desires it.

The shortage of money is probably the real long term problem, assuming the rest of the world gets tired of bankrolling invasions. He can and will get troops with a draft.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.



Although, I wonder if Sec. 4a has been followed-through every 60 days.

Read his article in the most recent New Yorker for excellent background on this story. Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie are planning to bomb strategic sites in Iran, hoping it will trigger a popular overthrow of the Mullahs. Really. I'm not making this up.

what's the worst thing he could do to America? Whatever it
is, that's what he'll do. I think he's been possessed by bin
Laden, because everything he's done has been exactly what
Al Quaeda hoped for. Right now, bin Laden is praying to
Allah that we'll be stupid enough to attack Iran. That would be
the cherry on his halal sundae, the one thing that could
actually finish us off as a Superpower.

In my "Quagmire Bowl" article I said the Iraq war
probably wouldn't be fatal. It's definitely hurt us, but it won't
mean the downfall of America. Well, if we invade Iran, that bet
is off. All bets are off. People don't realize how fast a
Superpower can fall. It only takes one invasion too
many.
Napoleon was unstoppable before he invaded Russia. So
was Hitler. Now France and Germany are "Old
Europe."
Invading the wrong country can age you faster than driving
a Long Beach bus on the night shift. Invading Iran helped
end the win-streak of the best, biggest Empire of all,
the Romans.

http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html

http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_seetheforest_archive.html#110602238441114259

courtesy Xymphora

I'm afraid that could be true. My thoughts were that the sabre-rattling is just for tough negotiations. But bombing nuke sites and popular revolt could be the twisted plan...

Last time they told the EU of imminent threat, bush did not get the response he wanted and went ahead anyhow. Experience says that this time will be no different.

and the headline is misleading.

The general populace of Iran really like Americans. It might sound hard to believe but they do!! For America to attack Iran would be based on complete "Bush Gang" ignorance of world relationships. Why would they attack one of the few populace's that actually like Americans??? Yes i know, there's not a brain cell amongst them, only billions of US dollars. Well it won't be their children that die! Bring it on America! Why don't you just get your fear and angst over with and attack us all!!! I know who will win!

Haven't we had enough of this Israel shit in Iraq?

What "Israel shit" did we have in Iraq? That fiasco was OUR own doing!

AIPAC-bought-through-campaign-contributions members of Congress voted for the IWR, people like Lantos, Lieberman, and Hillary for example.

Condi Rice herself said during her Senate confirmation testimony that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was Saddam's support for the Palestinians.

I thought Bush preferred to fight people who didn't have nukes, and that he wanted to be able to pipe iraqi oil directly to the Mediterranean.

I have to admit I thought Syria would be first too!!!

the most "imminent threat" I see in this world today is * and his regime. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree. Will they all sit back and let him continue? Is he really that powerful?

"We know where they have weapons of mass destruction, just to the north and east of Bagh... Tehran!"

"The smoking pistol may be a mushroom cloud over Washington!"

And it begins again - second verse, same as the first.

Where have I heard the "imminent threat" talk before?

A man with three buttocks!

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002090.shtml

This article is the result of a request, almost a demand from a Pakistani community leader in the Chicago Area. He was practically livid when the news mentioned this morning Israel having a spy in the Pentagon, in the office of Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. According to the New York Times, the FBI investigation revealed the official passed classified policy documents to officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israeli lobbying group, who in turn provided the information to Israeli intelligence.

The article goes on to state the bureau has evidence that the Pentagon official has provided the Israelis with a sensitive report about American policy toward Iran, according to officials. No one has been arrested and a spokesman for the Israeli embassy, David Siegel, denied the allegations, as did the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The community leader even repeated something said by Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Dr. Mahatir Mohammad, about Israel controlling the US. It is quite possible the US has proposed to Israel a joint operation against Iran.

Israel probably wishes she had such influence. I replied that Jewish people are highly organized, even before Israel was re-established, in 1948, and they take education seriously especially business and law. The reason why I have long doubted Israel controlling the US is because it has only recently dawned on the US government that Iran is a very real and near term threat and not just to the US but also to Europe and Russia and of course Iran will send military assistance to Pakistan when war becomes all out against India. The Jihad, under Persian direction, is extremely economic and very little of the world economy flows through Israel. Tehran is more of a threat to Singapore than to Israel. I remember, vividly, watching C-Span several years ago when Benjamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister of Israel. He was speaking in Washington in front of the National Press Club and said that when these missiles sales are made to the Middle East take a pencil and draw the radius of the missile’s range on a map. He was hinting that obviously these missiles aren’t meant for Israel. From parts of the Middle East the range is so close you can hit Israel just by throwing a rock. But that was years before 911 and before Iran undermined the US position in Iraq.

Those of you who read my previous article, “The Persian Influence and Timetable”, know of Iran’s impact, not only on the US, but also on the EU and Russia’s decision making and for quite some time, despite the Khomeini revolution. Iran is even more influential than even the rise of OPEC during the 1970’s which was probably the first threat to Israel’s influence in Washington, an influence I always believed was overrated. As you know I have a conspiratorial interpretation of history and with portraying Israel as being so effective in controlling American foreign policy, in the Middle East, it provides the US and Europe with a convenient scapegoat to blame if something goes wrong. You have long had a blame Israel lobby but it is something of a secret that would reveal more of the true nature of the West’s decision making and it reaches to the highest level of Western society. That is why in Brussels, in their Defense Ministry, has the painting “Siege of Jerusalem”, a scene of the first Crusades. That is probably why the EU is Iran’s leading trade partner. Everyone knows the Jihad pays well which is why I am grateful today’s New York Times article referred to a key figure in the Iran-Contra Scandal of 1987. The article states the Pentagon analyst, under suspicion, was one of two department officials who traveled to Paris for a secret meeting with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer who had been a central figure in the scandal. The article continues by saying, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed last year that the secret meeting had occurred but he defended it as an appropriate diplomatic effort and added the talks went nowhere. The New York Times article concludes by saying it was not immediately clear whether the espionage investigation was directly related to the secret meeting in Paris of if there were immediate evidence if money had changed hands for classified information.

<more>

don't you?



Redstone

they have been given the heads up!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Earns-Halliburton.html?oref=login


Rather convenient excuse for them, eh?

Weren't the Iraqis, and the Sudentenland Czezhs, also threats to Der Noble and Godly Fuhrer?

I cannot remember. Every day history is rewritten by The Party to suit it's needs.

As there is only ONE PARTY in Imperial Amerika, I leave you to guess whether I am discussing the Nazi of 1933, the Busheviks of 2005, or both.

hit Iran when the cable news networks are spending all their time demonizing the rulers in Iran. They have not started doing this yet. Likely this is just to test the waters for what kind of support they are getting for action. So far looks like the answer to that is about 0.

This tough talk is a way to bully Iran into disarming peacefully (the carrot and the stick approach)

The death of Arafat and election of Abbas is leading to hurried peace negotiations with another chance at a Palestinian state.

BUsh and Likud buddies do not want to risk attacking Iran and disrupting peace process. HOwever, they will make threats to increase their bargaining position. Peace in Palestine...will be the carrot for Iranian cooperation.

Arab world pressure on Iran will force nuclear disarmament in order to get peace deal for Palestine. ISrael may even offer to disarm it's own nukes

Also, Iran doesn't like all those US troops in Iraq. They know that if they talk peace...Bush will bring the troops home

The recent election in Iraq was a win for Iran...just as King Hussein what he thinks http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/26/112745.shtml

curious because this goes against everything I have been reading. I don't usually read Newsmax. It would be nice if it was true though.

...the PNAC liars will cook up enough scare tactics to persuade congresspeople scared of not looking "tough on terra" to go along with further *co crackpot wars.

We are screwed, bigtime. Iran can fight back.

Please, explain to me again the difference between *'s serial agression and invasion of countries and Hitler's actions??? The distinction without a difference.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=2f782bde630a06d4

Don't overreact on Iran, says Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Sunday 30th January, 2005 (UPI)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has urged the United States and other countries not to overreact about Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons.

Speaking Thursday at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, the two-term president cautioned against becoming overly obsessed over the likelihood that Iran might develop its own nuclear bomb, a WEF press release this weekend said.

Clinton took a cautious, pragmatic tone in his approach to current middle East problems in front of a WEF plenary session. According to the official press release, when he was asked if the United States should now send more forces to Iraq, the former president said he was not sure that Washington had enough
more...

If only Clinton was President if only!!!

...now that Clinton has stated an opinion, the * admin Clinton haters will make a point of doing the exact opposite (see: taking OBL/terrorism seriously pre-9/11).

You know its serious when Clinton is getting in the middle of it!!!

Who the fuck is Jon Kyle? He's no senator from Nevada!

http://kyl.senate.gov/

Senator Kyle's letter on 1/17

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=230701

Peace Requires Action on Iran and Syria Too
by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl


Last week's Palestinian elections, which I had the privilege to observe, were universally regarded as a great success. But they are only the first step in establishing real democracy for Palestinians. The question now is whether the victorious Mahmoud Abbas will use his mandate to turn the Palestinian Authority into a governing body that genuinely represents its people, and strive to lay the groundwork for negotiations with Israel that could lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Some have called on President Bush to "seize the moment," and quickly broker some kind of a deal. But a better approach is to give Abbas time to demonstrate himself whether he will do what is necessary to achieve lasting peace. The United States should instead focus its efforts on areas that the Israelis and Palestinians simply cannot, namely the external factors that could influence whether Palestinian terrorism continues.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders I spoke with agreed that Iran and Syria would continue to use terrorists in the disputed territories and along the Lebanon-Israel border to engage in a proxy war against the Jewish State. While Abbas can do much to stop terror in the territories, the U.S. can help with Iran and Syria.

more...

He is "seizing the moment"

the immediate threat to Iran. Iran is conveniently located in between our two colonies in the middle east. Once we invade Iran, we can knock down those borders between Iran and Iraq on one side and Iran and Afghanistan on the other. We can make it one big democracy. The United States of The Middle East. The good ol' USME.