PDA

View Full Version : Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran



Cullion
1st October 07, 08:18 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran230.xml

This begs the question, if they're not already sure what Iran has done wrong, why are they so keen to invade ? Best guess: They already have an opinion why they should invade, but it's not one they can justify to the public.

What's more interesting is, if this reason were just openly discussed, what would it be and would it be easier for people to agree with it if they didn't feel like they were being mislead?

kismasher
1st October 07, 08:40 AM
you should read some of Paul Craig Robert's essays.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/all_columns.htm

Arhetton
1st October 07, 09:26 AM
In answer to this


This begs the question, if they're not already sure what Iran has done wrong, why are they so keen to invade ? Best guess: They already have an opinion why they should invade, but it's not one they can justify to the public.


I think invading Iran (and Iraq) is part of a larger plan to control the oil reserves and limit the access to oil of China. Then the U.S can effectively 'control' chinas economic development - because oil & coal are the base units of energy (and thus growth) anywhere.




China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal

China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a US$70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer.


Under a memorandum of understanding signed Thursday, Sinopec Group will buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years from Iran and develop the giant Yadavaran field.

Iran is also committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years at market prices after commissioning of the field.

Iran's oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh, who is on a two-day visit to Beijing pursuing closer ties, said Iran is China's biggest oil supplier and wants to be its long-term business partner.

Official figures show that China imported 226 million tons of oil in2003, about 13 percent of which coming from Iran.
Beijing expects to secure foreign energy supplies by the deals for its economy, which has turned China into a major oil importer but suffers severe power shortages.

U.S policy is to remain the #1 power (economic, military etc). Go figure.

this is an excellent article:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6525-14.cfm

this too

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201546_pf.html


What's more interesting is, if this reason were just openly discussed, what would it be and would it be easier for people to agree with it if they didn't feel like they were being mislead?

I don't think it could be discussed openly in the political spectrum. I imagine its pretty well established behind closed doors (in private).

kismasher
1st October 07, 09:53 AM
i'm sure that's a factor, generally speaking. but there are a lot of holes in your ideas.

romba_one
1st October 07, 08:20 PM
I opened this message with Warhammer 40,000 on my mind, and read the title as: "Necrons seek to justify action against Tallarn."

WarPhalange
1st October 07, 08:28 PM
I'm waiting for emboesso.

elipson
1st October 07, 09:18 PM
They are pushing for action quickly because they know if Iran gets the bomb, military force becomes almost out of the question in the future.

They have a limited window with which to threaten Iran militarily. After that, the playing field becomes leveller. Once Iran gets the bomb, invading Iran becomes suicide.

JohnnyCache
1st October 07, 10:33 PM
I read thread title as "Necrons Seek to Justify ..."

That would be so much cooler.

Stick
1st October 07, 10:40 PM
I read thread title as "Necrons Seek to Justify ..."

That would be so much cooler.

The art was kinda kewl, but ultimatly this sucked.

TrHGC5bUf-c

Dagon Akujin
2nd October 07, 01:35 AM
They are pushing for action quickly because they know Bush & Friends will be out of the White House soon and nobody else is that unethical, immoral or fascist (except maybe Rudi and Brownback).

They have a limited window with which to threaten Iran while Bush is the Commander in Chief. After that, the playing field becomes leveller. Once Iran gets to actually hold diplomatic relations with the U.S., invading Iran becomes a hard way to try securing more oil and control of China.

fixed.

Dagon

EuropIan
2nd October 07, 03:27 AM
Wrong geek reference Dai.
http://www.hillcity-comics.com/role_play/gw/necron_front.jpg


I hate their stupid "we will be back" rule. But you just have to kill enough to cause a phase out.

Also everyone uses a damn Necron Lord with a Resurrection Orb. That's so damn cheap. I'm using S8 weapons for Emperor's sake!

Oh! neoCONS! Well, I hate their stupid "we will be back" rule as well.

romba_one
2nd October 07, 05:13 PM
Wrong geek reference Dai.
http://www.hillcity-comics.com/role_play/gw/necron_front.jpg


I hate their stupid "we will be back" rule. But you just have to kill enough to cause a phase out.

Also everyone uses a damn Necron Lord with a Resurrection Orb. That's so damn cheap. I'm using S8 weapons for Emperor's sake!

Oh! neoCONS! Well, I hate their stupid "we will be back" rule as well.

Never actually played against the NeCrons in 4th Ed. Still know they are tough as hell.

The n30[0Nz "we'll be back" rule only applys to the govenator of Kalifonia. what does his stat line read? 8 8 6 6 5 2 4 10 Special rules: Fearless, Austrian accent, and "I'll be Back" rule.

Any way I'll stop. I don't want to highjack the thread anymore.

ironlurker
21st October 07, 03:19 AM
:bssign:

Excellent article on this, somewhat of a revive/necro but I was truly impressed by this piece and I think anyone who is interested in what looks to be the coming war or "military action" should read it.
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

It says things I've heard and suspected for some time. It's not even so much "neocons" you get from it, it's WTF??? For some reason, our government is committed to no real form of detente or diplomacy with Iran. Back in 2000 I spoke with someone heavily involved in US-Iran relations and the stonewalling existed before Sept. 11th (which, BTW, Iran had nothing to do with) when Iran's government was at its most recent peak of openness and reform.

Iran will build reactors? North Korea did, and it's a hell of a lot more of a fucked up crazy-ass country than Iran, believe it or not. Did we bomb/invade them?

If we pull troops out of Iraq ASAP, yeah, things there will get worse/we will loose face/the terrorists win. Students of mine from the armed forces who have served there have pretty much been unanimously gung ho. Yes, there are commies in the media that think "OMG itz vietnam" and focus on the worst. Yes, there are real asshole terrorists and thugs in Iraq who want to take it over. So what's our choice?

1991: We can't overthrow Saddam because Iran will move in and take over

2002: We must overthrow Saddam

2007: We can't leave Iraq because Iran will move in and take over

200X: We must attack Iran

Is Ahmadinejad a loser/anti-semite/loud mouth? Yes. Would the world be a better place with a nuclear Iran? Probably not (but see North Korea above)

But, as they say in the article- it didn't have to be this way.
Same thing with Iraq -not even from a "war is bad, peace man"/kumbaya standpoint- but a military, political, and strategic standpoint, it didn't have to end up the way it is now.

There seems to be a clear incrementalism at work. We must do X. Well, whether or not we should have done X, we have no choice to do it know because of Y. We have to do Y. Well, whether or not we should have done Y . . .

Even worse- if you read this article in particular- is the fact that there seems to be a definite agenda. I thought stupidity/ignorance/lack of intelligence-diplomatic corps ability was to blame.

I think it's something much worse. The disregard for strategic and international political considerations can't be explained anymore by simple stubborness etc."More $ for capitalists/Haliburton" etc. doesn't cut it for me anymore as a total explanation What is going on? I don't think anyone really knows and that's the scary part.


In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.


"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive -- what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "


But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.


The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.
"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."


This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran. Without any meaningful incentive from the U.S. to be friendly, Iran will keep meddling in Iraq and installing nuclear centrifuges. This will trigger a response from the hard-liners in the White House, who feel that it is their moral duty to deal with Iran before the Democrats take over American foreign policy. "If you get all those elements coming together, say in the first half of '08," says Leverett, "what is this president going to do? I think there is a serious risk he would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone." . . .

Sun Wukong
21st October 07, 03:31 AM
I agree with you completely. They are engaged in cold war tactics with a country that doesn't necessarily want to be our enemy. I don't get it either.

ironlurker
21st October 07, 04:13 AM
I agree with you completely. They are engaged in cold war tactics with a country that doesn't necessarily want to be our enemy. I don't get it either.
I also think people are making a big fucking mistake if they think this will be a cakewalk, given that it goes down. These countries have long since realized their vulnerability to US air power while Americans are stuck with the "gee whiz" images of the sterile, video-game like First Gulf and Bosnian wars.

An Iranian-supplied C-802 surface to surface cruise missile nearly sunk an Israeli ship (disabled it and killed several on board) in the recent Lebanon debacle and caught everyone by surprise. There's rumored to be an improved version of the sunburn that goes incredibly fast with a very big (optional nuclear) payload specifically designed for use against aircraft carriers.

a) we're stretched out already (can debate to what degree), and we'll be fighting for, um, peace, while the regime in Iran will be fighting for survival

b) I suspect it took a lot to get Israel not to respond to Saddam's lame scuds in the first Gulf War. Will they not respond to Iran if a more substantial attack is made (if they're not involved with us from the get go)? Israel involved=potential for more shit to hit the fan

c) those Iranians who hate their government or sit on the fence won't be too happy losing water, electricity, etc. even if it doesn't get out of control. If we bomb a few targets and end of story, it could actually provide more support for the regime. "See what we meant?"

d) revenge through assymetrical warfare aka terrorism. A self-fulfilling prophecy, Iran supports terrorism, well this would provide the fringe more justification. There are known to be Hezbollah operatives/sympathizers in the US and Canada, but their activities have mainly centered on gaining money/weapons and not carrying out attacks, unless this happens

DAYoung
21st October 07, 04:25 AM
It could be America's Sicily.

DO IT DO IT DO IT.

Sun Wukong
21st October 07, 05:08 AM
Well, what we need is an end to these shitty foreign policy manuevers coming from washington. What we need is another ace foreign policy president; this flaq waving bullshit has gotten so old.

Hillary is just too polarizing for her to get much done and all the republican's seem to want to do is keep blazing along in the same directions as bush. fuck, the state of affairs in the US really, really sucks right now.

DAYoung
21st October 07, 05:13 AM
On the bright side, you have LOTS of fat people, television channels and lawyers.

Sun Wukong
21st October 07, 05:13 AM
dude, are you trying to make me commit suicide?

DAYoung
21st October 07, 05:17 AM
Here's something to cheer you up.

http://imgred.com/http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060830/060830_traffic_vmed_3p.widec.jpghttp://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060830/060830_traffic_vmed_3p.widec.jpg

Sun Wukong
21st October 07, 05:18 AM
fitting.

DAYoung
21st October 07, 05:22 AM
America did come up with Star Trek. And jazz. And it gave asylum to many important Europeans. And let's not forget Henry James and T.S. Eliot. Sure, they moved to England, but still...

Sun Wukong
21st October 07, 05:25 AM
but what have we done to make the world a better place lately? we haven't even done much, if anything, to significantly make the US a better place in the last decade.

DAYoung
21st October 07, 05:31 AM
Er. I've bought some good book from the US.

So.

Umm.

BIGG MARKETS IS COOL LOLZORS

Riddeck
22nd October 07, 04:05 PM
I think it's something much worse. The disregard for strategic and international political considerations can't be explained anymore by simple stubborness etc."More $ for capitalists/Haliburton" etc. doesn't cut it for me anymore as a total explanation What is going on? I don't think anyone really knows and that's the scary part.

Heh, the scary part is that there is people who know what is going on.

But you guys are too quick to call out "Conspiracy Theorists" to even listen.

Cullion
22nd October 07, 04:29 PM
I think it's something much worse. The disregard for strategic and international political considerations can't be explained anymore by simple stubborness etc."More $ for capitalists/Haliburton" etc. doesn't cut it for me anymore as a total explanation What is going on? I don't think anyone really knows and that's the scary part.

It's been explained in a pretty direct manner here:-

http://www.newamericancentury.org

The Neoconservatives believe that an empire can be a virtuous, beneficial civilising influence (i.e. secularising and democritising Islam's heartland by force), and America is just the country to do it, because it is the biggest, wealthiest democracy.

The oil plunder is necessary to fund the expansion. Questionable methods such as suspension of long-established constitutional liberties at home and the admitted use of torture (including sexual humiliation designed for maximum impact on young men raised in an Islamic culture) are necessary as part of the bigger picture.

When the job is done, the people of the middle east will be happier, freer and friendlier towards America, Israel will be safer and America will be richer, greater and admired by all. It's working great.

That's basically what why they aren't going to dick around whilst some Islamic low-life tries to negotiate with them. That's just going to slow down the gameplan, cause the weaklings back home to get confused.

I hope that explains to you what hardcore neoconservatives are really thinking.

Get rid of them soon, for all our sakes.

Shawarma
22nd October 07, 04:34 PM
Honestly, isn't PNAC really just the modern version of the Zionist Conspiracy? As in "Not half the powerful and all-encompassing conspiracy you think?"

I see their name thrown around so much I get the impression that they were also responsible for everything from the fall of the Roman empire to the shooting of Bambis mother.

Cullion
22nd October 07, 04:45 PM
Honestly, isn't PNAC really just the modern version of the Zionist Conspiracy? As in "Not half the powerful and all-encompassing conspiracy you think?"

I see their name thrown around so much I get the impression that they were also responsible for everything from the fall of the Roman empire to the shooting of Bambis mother.

Read the site. Do you know what PNAC is ? PNAC's membership includes all the senior Bush aides involved in pushing for and planning for the war. There is no secret conspiracy here. They publish their ideas about invading middle-eastern countries and converting them into pro-American democracies quite plainly.

Here is a list of the signatories of the PNAC statement of principles, as you can see, they aren't just right-wing journalists and think-tank members, but people with the highest levels of political connection and executive office:-

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

DAYoung
22nd October 07, 04:45 PM
It's been explained in a pretty direct manner here:-

http://www.newamericancentury.org

The Neoconservatives believe that an empire can be a virtuous, beneficial civilising influence (i.e. secularising and democritising Islam's heartland by force), and America is just the country to do it, because it is the biggest, wealthiest democracy.

The oil plunder is necessary to fund the expansion. Questionable methods such as suspension of long-established constitutional liberties at home and the admitted use of torture (including sexual humiliation designed for maximum impact on young men raised in an Islamic culture) are necessary as part of the bigger picture.

When the job is done, the people of the middle east will be happier, freer and friendlier towards America, Israel will be safer and America will be richer, greater and admired by all. It's working great.

That's basically what why they aren't going to dick around whilst some Islamic low-life tries to negotiate with them. That's just going to slow down the gameplan, cause the weaklings back home to get confused.

I hope that explains to you what hardcore neoconservatives are really thinking.

Get rid of them soon, for all our sakes.

If only they were right.

Shawarma
22nd October 07, 04:49 PM
Yeah, but what evidence of any kind proves that their American policymaking is directly influenced by the PNAC rather than by the motives of the people in power themselves?

Dagon Akujin
22nd October 07, 04:52 PM
use of torture (including sexual humiliation designed for maximum impact on young men raised in an Islamic culture) are necessary as part of the bigger picture.

When the job is done, the people of the middle east will be happier, freer and friendlier towards America, Israel will be safer and America will be richer, greater and admired by all. It's working great.


Admired by all. That's what you get when you cover people in shit and make them give each other bj'ers.

NSFW
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/abu_ghraib_abuse.jpg
http://www.americanstate.org/image/abu_ghraib_02.jpg

Riddeck
22nd October 07, 05:31 PM
Yeah, but what evidence of any kind proves that their American policymaking is directly influenced by the PNAC rather than by the motives of the people in power themselves?

Because the people in power are those that make up PNAC?

Sun Wukong
22nd October 07, 05:57 PM
Good find Cullion, I've seen PNAC pointed to before but honestly I didn't pay that much attention to it and just figured it was yet another lobbying group for neo-cons. I didn't realize they were so blatant about it and had the membership they have. It's like some twisted little cult that secretly worships Ann Coulter.

Riddeck
22nd October 07, 06:00 PM
Good find Cullion, I've seen PNAC pointed to before but honestly I didn't pay that much attention to it and just figured it was yet another lobbying group for neo-cons. I didn't realize they were so blatant about it and had the membership they have. It's like some twisted little cult that secretly worships Ann Coulter.

They have a paper "Building America's Future" where they speak out about needing another "Pearl Harbor" like event.

You have heard that, right?

Sun Wukong
22nd October 07, 06:08 PM
can you link to it? when did they publish the paper?

edit: that sounds like a good thread place to take this thread.

NoMan
22nd October 07, 06:24 PM
can you link to it? when did they publish the paper?


Wish I could find it, but one of Cheney's senior aides said if there was another attack, (after 9/11), they wouldn't even need to worry about FISA. (What is ostensibly protecting our rights against search and seizure now). That particular PNAC document he's talking about is infamous, and it was before 9/11. It's weirder for me whenever I see sober people like Josef Joffe, Niall Ferguson, or Christopher Hitchens proclaiming the virtues of PNAC-style theories. Other notables include Laurie Mylroie, Michael Maloof, David Wurmser (aide to Cheney), pushed theories like attacking in Portugal could have a ripple effect that cripled other terrorist organizations. (Attacking Portugese terrorists hurts Al Qaeda terrorists!) And a special shoutout to the German taxi cab driver from Iraq who said Saddam had anthrax trucks that spewed out anthrax into the atmosphere.

The spin on it is that the British Empire was a good and virtuous exercise that enobled the world, but now America must carry on that burden to make the world a better place. What indigenous people of those nations we help feel about it is beyond our scope and measure. As long as we do it, it is right. Therefore, it is morally wrong not to do it.

Around 1992 since the Defense Planning Guide was written by Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al., they've said they need a unifying event that will allow them to push their ideas through Congress. 9/11 happened and they got their wish. The lunacy when you listen to these people is that they seem to think they're right.

Cullion
22nd October 07, 06:31 PM
The surreal thing about these PNAC people is that the stuff they say is in the public domain. There's no secret conspiracy about it. That PNAC site is nothing more, and nothing less than people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz putting their names to papers that say this stuff.

The only thing that's 'coverup' about that organisation is that as far as I can tell they've removed the links to the papers where they used to talk about how pleased and pro-American the Iraqis were going to be once Saddam Hussein was dead..

They remind me, in a totally un-funny way, of the general in 'Full Metal Jacket' who gives the speech about 'keeping our heads until this peace craze blows over' and says 'inside every gook, there's an American, trying to get out'.

With one caveat; only one of these people (Rumsfield) has seen real military service, and that was during peace time.

These people aren't just 'wrong' , they are a clear danger to your whole way of life (mine for that matter). 'Orange Security Alert?' Oh please..

Cullion
22nd October 07, 06:40 PM
An awful lot of them happen to be former Democrats btw.

The PNAC and it's related think-tanks and sympathizers cannot be assumed to be confied to the Republican Party.

Be very careful voting for any 'centrist' democrat who despite displaying calculating shrewdness and excellent establishment connections insists that they took the clearly dubious intelligence reports at face value when they voted to invade Iraq, has no timetable for pulling out, refuses to admit they were wrong, sits on the fence over Iran and is now receiving substantial donations from the defence industry.

Yeah, you know who I'm talking about.

DAYoung
22nd October 07, 09:50 PM
Good find Cullion, I've seen PNAC pointed to before but honestly I didn't pay that much attention to it and just figured it was yet another lobbying group for neo-cons. I didn't realize they were so blatant about it and had the membership they have. It's like some twisted little cult that secretly worships Ann Coulter.

LOL, are you serious?

It's like they have "WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE PLANET" tattooed on their foreheads.

NoMan
22nd October 07, 10:02 PM
LOL, are you serious?

It's like they have "WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE PLANET" tattooed on their foreheads.

I think it would say "WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE PLANET...."

"FOR THE SAKE OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM!"

I mean, who could disagree with that?

"An awful lot of them happen to be former Democrats btw."

A lot of neocons are ex-Democrats. Glad to be rid of them.

Still, if it comes down to a certain "centrist" with a husband who has a history of military engagements and has herself indicated she will do exactly the same, and a certain ex-mayor who wants America to become a police state, I'll still have to go with Fascism lite. Ugh, it makes my stomach hurt to think about that campaign.

DAYoung
22nd October 07, 10:04 PM
Uh uh.

"FOR THE SAKE OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM!" is enameled into their assault rifles.

Dagon Akujin
23rd October 07, 02:24 AM
Fuck, even Wikipedia has stuff on them. Jeez. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_ Harbor.22)


"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor".

In his appearance on Democracy Now!, theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, explains the allusion to "the New Pearl Harbor" from the PNAC report in the title of his book, which argues that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Further information: 9/11 truth movement and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in The New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

"When the Towers came down," William Rivers Pitt writes in his editorial in Truthout.org, "these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy."

Even after 9/11, I read the paper off the PNAC website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). A lot of "conspirists" out there were directly linking to it at the time, and PNAC was very slow to remove some of their most damning proclamations about how we needed to be attacked. The full paper is still there though!!! (page 63)!! (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) They've just rearranged and reformatted things, and made it a little harder to see the evil they were long in love with.

Dagon

Cullion
23rd October 07, 11:04 AM
More discussion of the danger of electing a 'centrist' democrat:-

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070928.html

ironlurker
23rd October 07, 12:09 PM
More discussion of the danger of electing a 'centrist' democrat:-

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070928.html


Hillary's already been taking flack from the left-wing democrats who say that she will authorize action against Iran, her response is to say "I am against Bush acting without congressional approval". I don't know if there will be a Pearl Harbor in this case, but a Tonkin Bay type incident would fit the bill.

kungfujew
23rd October 07, 01:22 PM
The rational choices in the upcoming election are abundantly clear, for Democrats the rational choice, the one who holds opinions closest to most of the Democratic electorate; is Dennis Kucinnich, the happy gnome with the hot wife. For the Republicans, at least the wing of the Republican party with any brains or scrote, is Ron Paul (YES he's out of his mind, but look at the rest of those assholes).

But, thanks to the media clusterfuck and the way that politics is geared in the United States, the candidates with the most rational, sane agendas will be swept under a rug or into the designated "free speech zones", no matter how hot their wives are.
Politics in the United States is dead. Having condemned the majority of the electorate as idiotic or irrelevant, now I have to keep asking myself why I haven't taken to the woods Zapatista style to try and make a REAL difference... probably that whole "self-preservation-over-greater-good" thing...

Riddeck
23rd October 07, 09:06 PM
The surreal thing about these PNAC people is that the stuff they say is in the public domain. There's no secret conspiracy about it. That PNAC site is nothing more, and nothing less than people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz putting their names to papers that say this stuff.

The only thing that's 'coverup' about that organisation is that as far as I can tell they've removed the links to the papers where they used to talk about how pleased and pro-American the Iraqis were going to be once Saddam Hussein was dead...


Yeah, not even Hitler was bold enough to put it in writing.

The other cover-up which will put things into perspective (The attitude and plan they have for the world, which I assure you population control is part of (it is already happening, vaccines causing autism and sterilization, even death)), is the character make up of these people. Most of them are the very definition of 'evil'. They worship evil gods, celebrate mock rituals, et cet. That of course, is kind of creepy.

But on another note, to the 'another 9/11 more like Gulf of Tonkin'...there are some people who believe the next 'terrorist type attack' will bring martial law. Invasion of Iran, small potatoes I say.

Dagon Akujin
24th October 07, 01:36 AM
Most of them are the very definition of 'evil'. They worship evil gods, celebrate mock rituals, et cet. That of course, is kind of creepy.

Are you reffering to masturbating on the skull of a dead indian while in a coffin?

Riddeck
24th October 07, 03:51 AM
Are you reffering to masturbating on the skull of a dead indian while in a coffin?

Naw.

The Rituals at the Grove.
The Masons/Knights Templar/Illuminati to the "dark arts"

Things of that nature.

DAYoung
24th October 07, 03:56 AM
Things that we're not supposed to know about...

BUT WE DO AND AREN'T WE CLEVER.

ironlurker
24th October 07, 12:25 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif Iran "perhaps single greatest" security risk to US: Rice

Iran's nuclear program and alleged backing of terrorism represent "perhaps the single greatest challenge" to US national security, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday. "We are very concerned that the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world," she said at a hearing in Congress.
After recent bellicose US remarks, including President George W. Bush's warning that a nuclear-armed Iran evoked the threat of "World War III" Rice said that Washington remained committed to talks to end Iran's atomic drive.
"We are, with our international partners, continuing to pursue a two-track approach on the nuclear issue," she told the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee, giving testimony about US policy on the Middle East.
Rice noted that along with talks steered by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Washington and its EU partners were working on tougher UN sanctions against Iran given its refusal to renounce uranium enrichment.
Beyond the diplomacy, she said, Bush was determined to pursue "Iranian actors that are harming our troops (in Iraq) and innocent Iraqis."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071024141828.xc988yq6&show_article=1

o rly . . .

Cullion
27th October 07, 08:32 AM
This is allegedly the leaked plan of action from Cheney aides. I don't know about the site's credibility:-

http://www.alternet.org/story/66157/

WarPhalange
27th October 07, 12:38 PM
Even if the story is a complete fabrication, how far from the truth can it be?

Cullion
27th October 07, 01:25 PM
Even if the story is a complete fabrication, how far from the truth can it be?

Point taken, but details and source checking make all the difference between 'thanks for pointing that out, that's fucked up!' and 'save it for the next MUFON meeting, crank'.

ironlurker
27th October 07, 02:24 PM
'save it for the next MUFON meeting, crank'.

sounds like someone had a first-time abductor at the controls of their probe

Cullion
27th October 07, 02:31 PM
sounds like someone had a first-time abductor at the controls of their probe

You promised me you wouldn't mention it in public, star-lord.

Cullion
27th October 07, 03:22 PM
Seriously though, does anybody have a view on whether this source is credible?

ironlurker
27th October 07, 03:45 PM
Seriously though, does anybody have a view on whether this source is credible?

I'm not familiar with the alternet site. I read the story, and IMHO it seems feasible speculation, if somewhat lurid in tone. Just noted that it's actually taken from Der Speigel, so take that as you will. Pretty much sounds to me like what everyone has been saying here.

There is some evidence Syria has been up to something:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/10/25/syrias-mysterious-cleanup.html

But it still raises the question if things have been allowed to go/driven down this particular path.


Gary Sick is an expert on Iran who served as a military adviser under three presidents
Gary Sick, didn't he open for the Sex Pistols back in the day?

Cullion
27th October 07, 04:51 PM
The specifics of the authenticity of the quotes are what matter to me.

patfromlogan
28th October 07, 07:12 PM
Fuck, even Wikipedia has stuff on them. Jeez. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_ Harbor.22)



Even after 9/11, I read the paper off the PNAC website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). A lot of "conspirists" out there were directly linking to it at the time, and PNAC was very slow to remove some of their most damning proclamations about how we needed to be attacked. The full paper is still there though!!! (page 63)!! (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) They've just rearranged and reformatted things, and made it a little harder to see the evil they were long in love with.

Dagon

“The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” PNAC

patfromlogan
28th October 07, 07:26 PM
Oh and by the way, fuck bush, fuck cheney, fuck bush, fuck cheney, fuck bush, fuck cheney, fuck bush, fuck cheney, fuck bush, fuck cheney, fuck bush, fuck cheney... or should I pray for them?

WarPhalange
28th October 07, 08:57 PM
You're forgetting a few people there, but you have the general idea down.

EuropIan
30th October 07, 11:48 AM
The specifics of the authenticity of the quotes are what matter to me.

Der Spiegel is pretty much the German equivalent to Newsweek or any other high profile magazine. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong though.

ironlurker
30th October 07, 10:02 PM
Der Spiegel is pretty much the German equivalent to Newsweek or any other high profile magazine. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong though.

The day I stopped reading Newsweek was the day they said Chelsea Clinton "wowed the crowd with her looks." In hindsight, the implicit lulz were over my head

Shawarma
31st October 07, 11:11 AM
Bwahahaha, 52 percent of Americans favour war against Iran now. Idiots. They apparently WANT to play straight into the hands of the Iranian extremists at the expense of the US taxpayer and trooper.

Dagon Akujin
31st October 07, 12:52 PM
Bwahahaha, 52 percent of Americans favour war against Iran now. Idiots. They apparently WANT to play straight into the hands of the Iranian extremists at the expense of the US taxpayer and trooper.
If only all those 52% had to sign up to be shipped out to go fight in WWIII Iran... and then died so we could get rid of their fucking kind.

EuropIan
31st October 07, 12:58 PM
The day I stopped reading Newsweek was the day they said Chelsea Clinton "wowed the crowd with her looks." In hindsight, the implicit lulz were over my head


This gave me many lulz. I'm sure Der Spiegels is just as enthralled with Angela Merkel


It's a trap, chickenhawks, don't be fooled.

patfromlogan
31st October 07, 08:48 PM
Bwahahaha, 52 percent of Americans favour war against Iran now. Idiots. They apparently WANT to play straight into the hands of the Iranian extremists at the expense of the US taxpayer and trooper.


Osama is dancing a fucking jig! And about the same percentage think that Hussein was behind 9/11. Propaganda works...

Nuremberg trial records:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

WarPhalange
31st October 07, 09:22 PM
You forgot the part where he says you just label the people who disagree with the war as being unpatriotic.

Dagon Akujin
1st November 07, 12:52 AM
Nuremberg trial records:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Just thought I'd add in the rest.

WarPhalange
1st November 07, 12:54 AM
There you go.

Shawarma
1st November 07, 01:33 PM
Lol, now Bush has said that "Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda are as dangerous as Lenin and Hitler!"

Sure, they'll get around to killing those 50+ million folks any day now.

ironlurker
1st November 07, 01:38 PM
Lol, now Bush has said that "Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda are as dangerous as Lenin and Hitler!"

Sure, they'll get around to killing those 50+ million folks any day now.

LOL gotta start somewhere

WarPhalange
1st November 07, 03:20 PM
Lol, now Bush has said that "Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda are as dangerous as Lenin and Hitler!"

Sure, they'll get around to killing those 50+ million folks any day now.

I think his point was that America can't be in 2nd place and we need to get our asses in gear. How many people have we directly killed so far in Iraq?

billy sol hurok
1st November 07, 03:26 PM
How many people have we directly killed so far in Iraq?
Sixty kajillion. All of 'em civilians. I read it in the Lancet.

AAAhmed46
1st November 07, 03:51 PM
Im with Phil Elmore(read his myspace)

lets bomb those dirt niggers to oblivion !!!!!!!!!!!!

Thinkchair
1st November 07, 10:07 PM
This administration frustrates me to no end. They were either too stupid to see that Iran's power and influence in the Middle East would increase as a result of us going to with Iraq, or they assumed they would still have political capital afterwards to continue into Tehran.

ironlurker
1st November 07, 10:50 PM
The latest news seems to be that Obama is trying to argue for a different approach as a way to distinguish himself from "I won't vote for it unless I vote for it" Hillary:


Obama Envisions New Iran Approach

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JEFF ZELENY
Published: November 2, 2007
CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops . . .



“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?ref=us

I'm actually impressed by his stance. It could simply be due to desperation, as the Hillary supporters claim, but I actually think it takes some gumption to say this in the current political climate when so many on the left and right are leaning towards war. Like I said, North Korea is pretty much at the top of the list of bizarre/psychotic countries and we have talks with them (and they haven't nuked us yet).

It's also pretty ridiculous IMHO to expect that Iran won't "meddle" etc. in Iraq. Better to have at least some of it above board. It would be pretty unrealistic for a country to occupy Canada and expect the US would have absolutely no covert operations or interference in the situation.

Thinkchair
1st November 07, 11:01 PM
The latest news seems to be that Obama is trying to argue for a different approach as a way to distinguish himself from "I won't vote for it unless I vote for it" Hillary:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?ref=us

I'm actually impressed by his stance. It could simply be due to desperation, as the Hillary supporters claim, but I actually think it takes some gumption to say this in the current political climate when so many on the left and right are leaning towards war. Like I said, North Korea is pretty much at the top of the list of bizarre/psychotic countries and we have talks with them (and they haven't nuked us yet).

It's also pretty ridiculous IMHO to expect that Iran won't "meddle" etc. in Iraq. Better to have at least some of it above board. It would be pretty unrealistic for a country to occupy Canada and expect the US would have absolutely no covert operations or interference in the situation.

I think he is on to something. We have given Iran a huge global platform by paying so much attention to them.

Cullion
2nd November 07, 09:44 AM
Another Paul position mimicked.

Shawarma
2nd November 07, 11:30 AM
Situation with Iran can't be salvaged for the yanks as it is right now, the way I see it. Bomb them, they gain massive support from their own population and from Muslims in many countries, leave them alone and they're free to schmooze up to the Shia-dominated Iraqi government and make Iraq a kind of vassal state.

Zendetta
1st December 07, 04:00 AM
Are you reffering to masturbating on the skull of a dead indian while in a coffin?

RiddecK! This is a Skull and Bones reference. What kind of conspiracy nutcase are you anyway?!??!

Riddeck
1st December 07, 05:34 AM
RiddecK! This is a Skull and Bones reference. What kind of conspiracy nutcase are you anyway?!??!

And how lame are you for this bump?