|
Post by Jaga on Oct 22, 2007 13:29:08 GMT -7
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/10/22/BL2007102200929.html?nav=hcmoduleJust four days after President Bush said the best way to avoid "World War III" was to prevent Iran from obtaining the know-how to build a nuclear bomb, Vice President Cheney vowed that Iran would face "serious consequences" if "it stays on its present course." In an address yesterday to a pro-Israel think tank, Cheney stepped up the warlike rhetoric against Iran, most notably by linking Iran's government to attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq more explicitly than ever before. "Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian president, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions," Cheney said. He offered no new evidence for his accusation. John Hendren reports for ABC News: "Cheney's statement bore a striking resemblance to this warning before an audience of Republicans on Jan. 31, 2003, less than two months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq: 'We will not permit a brutal dictator with ties to terror and a record of feckless aggression to dominate the Middle East and to threaten the United States.' "A spokeswoman for the vice president said his statements today echoed his previous comments on Iran." (See, for instance, March 7, 2006, and May 11, 2007.) "But analysts said the administration's talk on Iran has taken on a tone of rising warning and aggressiveness, particularly on a week that included an unusually strongly worded admonition from President Bush earlier this week. . . . "The rising rhetoric could signal that President Bush intends to take action -- possibly military action -- to halt Iran's nuclear program before the president leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, some analysts said." Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "The remarks, just days after President Bush suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to 'World War III,' amounted to Part II of a one-two punch from the administration at a moment when it is trying to persuade its allies in Europe to impose stiffer sanctions on Tehran." ....
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 8, 2007 1:05:13 GMT -7
Since the US have problems with Pakistan, Turkey and weak currency.... Iran is not in the forefront anymore. I am glad that the REAL problems overshadowed the neo-conservatists war-mongering ideas.
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Nov 10, 2007 11:54:28 GMT -7
Jaga, then there is the interesting introduction to this opinion piece:
There is something of a macabre competition underway among the commentariat over which aspect of the Bush legacy will prove most disastrous. Many would single out the tragedy of Iraq and the promise of residual violence between Sunni and Shia within the country and perhaps spreading to the surrounding region. A few might suggest that it is the prospect of a nuclear Iran and a diplomacy effort with Tehran at utter loggerheads that will turn out to be the gift that keeps on giving. Others would highlight the decline in America’s moral standing and soft power as really the most worrisome dimension of the inheritance and a condition not easily remedied even by a new and more enlightened leadership in Washington. Some would suggest that the fiscal reversal of recent years going from large surpluses to massive indebtedness will end up being the unwelcome gift that will require large future repayments – with interest.
A dispirited group of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld might have called “dead enders” would simply offer two words that have now become one in the public imagination: waterboarding.
Yet to my mind, the inheritance that in retrospect will carry with it the greatest regret and misgivings will be the lack of leadership of the United States over the last seven years on the issue of climate change. President Bush recently convened a summit of sorts among some sympathetic leaders and titans of industry on the matter of climate change to make clear that he now accepts climate change as an “issue of concern.” This effort was in many ways an alternative forum designed to avoid the likely public dunning the United States president would have been subjected to by the global community if he had instead chosen to participate in the concurrent United Nations effort on the same subject.
Still, the president found himself increasingly isolated from both the business community and some like minded politicians. Conservative leaders the world over from the Prime Minister of Australia to the Shadow Tory leader in Britain have come to appreciate the salience of the climate change issue in both national and global politics. Yet the Bush administration has steadfastly and stubbornly refused to regard climate change as a potentially globe-changing phenomena largely triggered by human induced carbon loading into the atmosphere – despite mountains of scientific data that would strongly suggest otherwise.
More recently, the president has instead referred to “our addiction to oil” and acknowledged that human activity has “probably” played a role in some climate dynamics, but he and his government have stopped short of any serious national level efforts to reduce carbon emissions beyond voluntary, non-binding steps. Indeed, his public statements suggesting a dawning of recognition about the potential threat of climate change have been largely rhetorical.
In fact, Bush administration officials stationed throughout the massive federal apparatus are vigilantly on guard for any scientific finding, expert report or climate analysis that would suggest climate change might already be having a negative effect on our weather or security today. Witness the most recent efforts of the Bush team to redact over half of a public report by the Surgeon General’s office about the likely negative health effects posed by climate change – including the likelihood of threats posed by an increase of uncontrolled wild fires very much akin those currently burning in California.
Meanwhile, there are literally thousands of spontaneous efforts across America aimed at reducing carbon footprints at the state and local level, among progressive business and finance groups, and on university campuses. The people are beginning to mobilize while Rome burns (oil and petroleum), literally. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former Vice President Al Gore was taken by the administration as a clear snub and insult, and it has probably just caused the Bush team to stubbornly resist taking action all the more. So while the competition is intense and bad news from Iraq and Iran jockey for position among the pantheon of inherited horrors for a likely succession of future presidents to deal with, my money rides on our failure as a nation to take seriously the awful realities of climate change as the one issue that will in retrospect carry with it the most sorrow and regret from the Bush era.
November 5, 2007, 12:09 am The Inheritance on Climate
By Kurt Campbell
Kurt Campbell
Kurt Campbell is an expert on Asia and security issues who is now chief executive of the Center for a New American Security. He served in the Pentagon in the Clinton administration, in charge of Asia/Pacific issues, and earlier taught at Harvard. Kurt has written widely, for popular and academic audiences, about everything from Japan to nuclear policy.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Nov 10, 2007 13:36:15 GMT -7
Jaga
Actually good timing of presentation. It would so seem of the Mr. Cheney and that of Mr. Bush are soon in few months to be un-employed.
What best manner to insure a need, but to insure a solution.
Other then the best manner in me as to not bring about irritation amongst our American friends, how best should I say that is of my mind.
Charles
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 11, 2007 13:16:23 GMT -7
The trick is ... that while Bush and Cheney may be unemployed - will those who support them and their policies be likewise "unemployed?" Keep watching the sky!
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Nov 15, 2007 7:20:17 GMT -7
Jaga Actually good timing of presentation. It would so seem of the Mr. Cheney and that of Mr. Bush are soon in few months to be un-employed. What best manner to insure a need, but to insure a solution. Other then the best manner in me as to not bring about irritation amongst our American friends, how best should I say that is of my mind. Charles An ole story nobody noticed !!! CIA 'let atomic expert Khan go' Tuesday, 9 August 2005 AQ Khan, Pakistani nuclear scientist Pakistan pardoned AQ Khan, despite his dramatic revelations Pakistani nuclear expert AQ Khan was not arrested when living in the Netherlands as the CIA was monitoring him, an ex-Dutch prime minister says. Ruud Lubbers said the CIA had asked the Netherlands in 1975 not to prosecute Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is now dubbed the father of Pakistan's atom bomb. Mr Khan admitted last year that he had leaked nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran. He came under suspicion while working for a Dutch uranium firm, Urenco. He has been under close guard at his home in Islamabad since his public confession. According to Mr Lubbers, US intelligence wanted to find out more about Mr Khan's contacts while he was working as an engineer at the top secret Dutch uranium enrichment plant at Almelo. ... Although you can't conclude directly from that 'monitoring' that any "offer you can't refuse" was made by the Agency towards the Pakistani scientist - you can't exclude it as well. The optic nevertheless is damaging. It bears the same fingerprints as the set up of Iraq's Saddam as it were U.S. companies in the vicinity of the government who provided Saddam with all kinds of ABC material. First sell it as a "bait" - then go and kill the prey. Additionally this theory concludes very much with what was written by NYT's James Risen in his book "State of War" as I reported in: OPERATION "MERLIN" AND HOW IRAN GOT THE BOMB ... FROM THE CIA Monday, 9 January 2006, 7:53 p.m. And perhaps you may understand Zbigniew Brzezinski's comment from 2005 in a new light where he said that Bush should "let Iran have nukes" - although the year before the same Zbigniew Brzezinski, recommended "a revised strategic approach to Iran". Only at that time he was a member of a task force sponsored by the CFR and most probably the bait hasn't been planted yet. So it seems, that the new "prey" of the season - the Iran - has just spit out that bait in time by delivering that documentation to the UN's atomic watchdog. The new IAEA report is regarded to be crucial because the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany did agree to hold off a vote on additional sanctions until after the release of the new 'eport. War on 'error, Part 0815: "The worse the bait, the longer the wait!"
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 23, 2007 0:34:51 GMT -7
One more argument showing how difficult it would be to justify the attack on Iran. There are almost no Iranian foreign fighters in Iraq, The majority comes from two friendly countries: Saudi Arabia and Libya. Read more below:Around 60% of all foreign militants who entered Iraq to fight over the past year came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, according to files seized by American forces at a desert camp. The files listed the nationalities and biographical details of more than 700 fighters who crossed into Iraq from August last year, around half of whom came to the country to be suicide bombers, the New York Times reported today. In all, 305, or 41%, of the fighters listed were from Saudi Arabia. Another 137, or 18%, came from Libya. Both countries are officially US allies in anti-terrorism efforts. In contrast, 56 Syrians were listed and no Lebanese. Previously, US officials estimated that around a fifth of all foreign fighters in Iraq came from these two countries. US officials have also long complained about Iranian interference in the affairs of its neighbour, accusing Tehran of shipping weapons for militants over the border. However, any assistance does not appear to extend to people, the paper said, reporting that, of around 25,000 suspected militants in US custody in Iraq, 11 were Iranian. No Iranians were listed among the fighters whose details were found. www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2215380,00.html
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 23, 2007 8:39:38 GMT -7
Dear Group,
Do you want a World War III, if not open up your minds, this could come around, if action is not taken now. Like World War II, we can't just wait until it happens than act. Open up your minds, look at both sides of this. Don't just pick what your party tells you, think for yourself.
Micheal Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 23, 2007 8:56:25 GMT -7
Like World War II, we can't just wait until it happens than act. Open up your minds, look at both sides of this. Don't just pick what your party tells you, think for yourself. Micheal Dabrowski Hmmm .... I think as far as the US of A is concerned we did wait until it happened and then acted (WWI as well) ...
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 23, 2007 21:33:17 GMT -7
Dear Group, Do you want a World War III, if not open up your minds, this could come around, if action is not taken now. Like World War II, we can't just wait until it happens than act. Open up your minds, look at both sides of this. Don't just pick what your party tells you, think for yourself. Micheal Dabrowski Dear Michael, I do not want the US to start World War III. Do you want it? We know that Iraq was not ready to start any war. There is no chance the Iran will do it, so the only real option is the US to start it. I agree with you. We do not want WW III to start!
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 24, 2007 9:06:02 GMT -7
Jaga,
But we can't just stand by, and be pushed around, and our people killed by others. We must put a stop to this, and keep things in line. We did not start any war, but we waited in WW II, to be hit on, than acted. We can't do this again.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 24, 2007 12:20:21 GMT -7
Jaga, But we can't just stand by, and be pushed around, and our people killed by others. We must put a stop to this, and keep things in line. We did not start any war, but we waited in WW II, to be hit on, than acted. We can't do this again. Michael Dabrowski Michael, the push for the war with Iran does looks like propaganda. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and we attacked preemptively. If Iran will attack another country that I understand it is a problem. But Iran does not attack anybody and going to war just because .... Israel tells us so.... reminds too much of Iraq. Let do not get to paranoid and attack countries because of unsubstantiated fear they would attack us....
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 24, 2007 13:27:44 GMT -7
---{{Jaga,
People from Iran are killing our troops in Iraq, and everyone knows it, they cross the border and back. And there were W.O.M.D., and we did find many, but many were moved to Iran and are still there. Here where I live, we look out for each other, all neighbors help one another, and this is what we are doing. Mrs. Clinton voted for our attack on Iraq. And she is your lady, not mine.
Michael Dabrowski}}---
Michael
I am just curious. How is that every one knows the Iranians are killing American troops, and of how is that every one knows of weapons of mass distruction were moved to Iran?
For I am not challenging, just very curios. {Are you an American Intelligence Officer?}
Charles
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 24, 2007 15:16:28 GMT -7
Since the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and according to the latest reports from the Bush administration, the foreign fighters in Iraq are also from Saudi Arabia - why are we not attacking them?
60 Percent Of Iraq's Foreign Militants 'Come From US Allies' The Guardian | Peter Walker | November 22, 2007 02:08 PM Around 60% of all foreign militants who entered Iraq to fight over the past year came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, according to files seized by American forces at a desert camp.
The files listed the nationalities and biographical details of more than 700 fighters who crossed into Iraq from August last year, around half of whom came to the country to be suicide bombers, the New York Times reported today.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 24, 2007 18:08:28 GMT -7
Michael,
if the ranking of the countries to attack would be done on the basis of how many foreigners are in the US killing US troops than we should go to Saudi Arabia first, just like Holly pointed.
|
|