No self-respecting iranian will ever follow those animals. The MEK are dirty traitors. they fought along side the iraqis against Iran. They did initaly participate in the Revolution from hell in 79, not to mention killed many of irans best generals, pilots and Intellectuals. however, once it became apparant to them that khomenie ( the dictator) was'nt illing to share any power with them, they turned against him. Since then most iranians have come to hate those traitors with a great deal zest. Those animals have no support amongst populast whatsoever.
No self-respecting iranian will ever follow those animals. The MEK are dirty traitors. they fought along side the iraqis against Iran. They did initaly participate in the Revolution from hell in 79, not to mention killed many of irans best generals, pilots and Intellectuals. however, once it became apparant to them that khomenie ( the dictator) was'nt illing to share any power with them, they turned against him. Since then most iranians have come to hate those traitors with a great deal zest. Those animals have no support amongst populast whatsoever. I should add, the current regime is unstabel and is extremely, unpopular. i dont think iran has ever had a more unpopular regime ever. unlike the shah, these animals will kill anyone who says anything or starts a protest against them. they will leave in a bloodbath. khomenie once said, we came to power with blood, we will go with a million times more blood spilt.
A simple yes or no question to war supporters. It's a question that a lot of people are asking the administration but no one seems to be able to get an answer. via josh -- "Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?”
Of course, according to War Powers Resolution passed in 1973, the President can wage any war for 60 days without Congressional Approval and the government has to fund it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution This is already an improvement. Prior to that, the President can wage war indefinitely.
Russia is concerned about a recent military 'buildup' in the Gulf... US must explain Mideast military build-up: Russia http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/255134/1/.html MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Saturday said he would demand an explanation from the United States over its military build-up in the Middle East and criticised Washington for "hardline" policies against Iran. Lavrov said he would discuss Moscow's concerns during a meeting of the international quartet group, which meets in Washington next week to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. "I have not seen any change in the rather aggressive rhetoric from Washington. It continues, as does the growing military presence in the region. This will be one of the questions that we want to clear up in Washington," he was quoted as saying by state-run news agency RIA Novosti. Lavrov also criticised what he said were US threats to bypass the United Nations in taking new measures against Iran's controversial nuclear power programme. Washington believes the programme, in which Russia is building the first civilian power station at Bushehr, secretly aims to build an atomic weapon. "Washington's hardline policy concerning Iran foresees... much tougher sanctions than those called for in the last UN Security Council resolution," he was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS. "We would like to get an explanation on what stands behinds this." Unilateral measures "damage the joint work on Iran and our joint goal of getting Tehran to restart negotiations," he said, Interfax news agency reported. Lavrov urged the United States to include Iran and Syria in a wider Middle East peace process, saying the two countries, which have long been at loggerheads with the United States, could positively influence both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the crisis in Lebanon. "We are deeply convinced that Iran and Syria must be included in the process," he was quoted as saying by Interfax. "Many Arab countries are for including all influential players in the regulation of the Middle East crisis," he said, ITAR-TASS reported. "This means including Iran and Syria in resolving the Lebanese and the Palestinian-Israeli problems." The international quartet is to meet February 2 in the US capital, according to the State Department. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host Lavrov, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. The meeting takes place against a backdrop of violence and tensions in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territory, as well as the raging conflict in Iraq, where 21,000 extra US troops are due to be deployed shortly. The United States has also boosted forces in the region with the dispatch of an aircraft carrier, which should join another already present in about a month, according to the US Navy.
"The United States has also boosted forces in the region with the dispatch of an aircraft carrier, which should join another already present in about a month, according to the US Navy." Iran War in a month? Maybe I should load up some oil futures now.
Great! CNN just did a report that the US might, might, have proof that the attack that killed 4 Americans the other day was committed by Iran! Convenient huh?
josh weighs in on the CNN report I saw yesterday. -- As the saying goes, if it didn't exist, you'd have to invent it. So with that in mind, let's do a little prospective journalism. When the bogus 'Iran incident' happens that becomes the predicate for a military attack on Iran, what will it look like? Let's try to sketch it out in advance. Will it be a real incident in Iraq for which the Iranians are blamed? Or will it be a complete bogus incident, something that never happened, that they're blamed for? Will we receive the news in manufactured evidence? Or will it all come through unnamed leaks and Richard Perle appearances on CNN? Some key requirements occur to me. 1. Despite being fake, the incident must seem reasonably credible. 2. It must appear serious enough that discounting its importance or questioning its veracity appears the height of unseriousness. 3. It must place the majority of us in the odd and unexpected position of granting to President Bush the unfettered discretion to launch a war against Iran at the time and place of his choosing, despite our desire that he start it right now. Any other requirements? Late Update: TPM Reader TB adds some key requirements ... Later Update: We can of course evaluate this one for potential. This is right off the presses from CNN ... A few quick points just to make a go of it. The possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination. So, not likely that any native Iraqis could have pulled off this attack. Check. And it's possible that the attackers were Iranian or "Iranian-trained". Again, just for the sake of conversation -- our current angle in Iraq is to cozy up to SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) as the moderate Shi'a grouping over and against the al-Sadr and possibly al-Maliki, the current prime minister. SCIRI's paramilitary is the Badr Brigade. They were formed in Iran and by Iran from pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia. They fought alongside the Iranian army during the Iran-Iraq war. Before we toppled the Hussein government, they were still headquartered in Tehran. Anyway, I'd stop by Juan Cole's site to hear from someone who really knows about this stuff. But even our feeble knowledge here at TPM is enough to tell us that when we start hearing catch-alls like 'Iranian-trained' for anything that happened in southern Iraq, we're dealing with meaninglessly vague words meant to bamboozle and hoodwink. Remember too this incident occurred in Karbala, where the Badr Brigade is headquartered. To be clear, I'm not saying the Badr Brigade was behind this, only that in the context of paramilitaries in southern Iraq, 'Iranian-trained' is a meaninglessly broad category. Really Friggin' Late Update: Ahhh, and of course news of the secret Iran meddling 'dossier' has been vouchsafed to Fox News. Party Like it's 1999 Update: Bob Baer picks up on rumors in Iraq that the Karbala incident might be the work of Iranian Revolutionary Guards retaliating for the capture of their comrades in Erbil earlier this month. But he's careful to identify them as just rumors. -- Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
TWN has secured testimony being offered by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski tomorrow morning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 9:30 a.m. Brzezinski will be paired with former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft who will testify about their views on the strategic context of America's actions in Iraq. SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI Mr. Chairman: Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them. It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities: 1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability. 2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions. If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001916.php
man, if you wage war for 60 days. . . it is ON You cannot pull out sayin .. time out . .my time is up Rocket River
Pretty absurd if you think about it. Seems asking Congress for a declaration of war is out of fashion. And we aren't talking about some national emergency requiring immediate action to protect the national interest, like a response to North Korean aggression across the border, for example. In the case of Iraq, it was a methodical, cold blooded invasion and occupation. There was no need to "rush." I'm afraid we may be embarked on a similar course with Iran. God, I hope not. Not another massive cockup from this President, please! D&D. The Rooster Crows.
Iranians seized in attack on Hamas conclave Iran is already fighting the US and our allies as well as serving as an instigative or at least escalating agent in middle east hotspots like Gaza.
They have been doing this for decades just like we sponsored terrorist groups inside Iran for decades. So what is your solution here? Bomb them back to the Stone Age?
The end game. The reason we are in Iraq. And why we will never leave. Here in South Asia By Reed Hundt | bio At a conference on the shores of the Bay of Bengal I happened to have a long talk with a former general who while on active service ran an army engaged in conflict with a major Muslim nation. His comment about the "surge" was this: "You never reinforce a losing situation." But reinforcing the American military commitment to the Middle East is the maxim of the Administration. It is the Vice President's essential thesis: the American military must be firmly installed in the Middle East until the end of oil, and until anti-American Islamic fervor fades away, no matter how long that may take. He sees American dependence on Middle Eastern oil lasting at least 60 to 80 years, notwithstanding the impact on the environment, not to mention the current account deficit. He sees armed opposition to Islamic fundamentalism as lasting at least as long as the Cold War, and of course he thinks of the conflict as the successor to the Soviet threat against capitalism and democracy. The Vice President has explained all this many times, in various ways, and in his heyday he persuaded virtually all of the mainstream media to agree with him. Even now the Vice President plays the essential role in running the White House foreign policy strategy and, especially in the wake of Secretary Rumsfeld's departure, military strategy as well. From his perspective, withdrawal of the American military from Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East is wishful thinking at best, dangerous to America's economic future at worst, and, additionally, catastrophic for Israel. On this last point, Senator Lieberman is in strident agreement. From the Vice President's point of view, the dire assessment of the security analysts about Iraq only underscores the importance of reinforcing the American commitment. He thinks that tactics may need to be changed, but the prospect of greater violence spreading from Iraq across the region only underscores the importance of the strategic goal: locking in American access to the region's resources and precluding the formation of significant military power under the control of any Islamic theocratic regime. The Democratic Presidential candidates are not likely to be able to avoid direct debate over the Vice President's thesis for the whole long period until the election. John McCain and Mitt Romney agree with the Vice President and will articulate his views forcefully. The Administration's actions with respect to Iran are part of this larger narrative. It isn't that the Administration actually wants war with Iran, but on the other hand it does want to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What Democrat will disagree with that? And if that goal is stipulated, what then will Democrats argue in the general election about policy with respect to Iran? Just saying we should talk to Iran is not likely to suffice. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/02/here_in_south_asia
Sometimes I wonder whether Bush Admin making a mess out of Iraq was for this purpose. Therefore, they are more evil than incompetent. I hope I am being cynical again...
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet? by Craig Unger March 2007 In the weeks leading up to George W. Bush's January 10 speech on the war in Iraq, there was a brief but heady moment when it seemed that the president might finally accept the failure of his Middle East policy and try something new. Rising anti-war sentiment had swept congressional Republicans out of power. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had been tossed overboard. And the Iraq Study Group (I.S.G.), chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, had put together a bipartisan report that offered a face-saving strategy to exit Iraq. Who better than Baker, the Bush family's longtime friend and consigliere, to talk some sense into the president? By the time the president finished his speech from the White House library, however, all those hopes had vanished. It wasn't just that Bush was doubling down on an extravagantly costly bet by sending 21,500 more American troops to Iraq; there were also indications that he was upping the ante by an order of magnitude. The most conspicuous clue was a four-letter word that Bush uttered six times in the course of his speech: Iran. His nuclear ambitions make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (left) a threat. But attacking Iran—as former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (right) has urged—could be Bush's biggest blunder of all. In a clear reference to the Islamic Republic and its sometime ally Syria, Bush vowed to "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." At about the same time his speech was taking place, U.S. troops stormed an Iranian liaison office in Erbil, a Kurdish-controlled city in northern Iraq, and arrested and detained five Iranians working there. Already, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war in Iraq. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people have been killed. Countless more are wounded or living as refugees. Launched with the intention of shoring up Israeli security and replacing rogue regimes in the Middle East with friendly, pro-Western allies, the war in Iraq has instead turned that country into a terrorist training ground. By eliminating Saddam Hussein, the U.S.-led coalition has sparked a Sunni-Shiite civil war, which threatens to spread throughout the entire Middle East. And, far from creating a secular democracy, the war has empowered Shiite fundamentalists aligned with Iran. The most powerful of these, Muqtada al-Sadr, commands both an anti-American sectarian militia and the largest voting bloc in the Iraqi parliament. "Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn't happened," says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. "And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.' But after you've lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?" By now, the story of how neoconservatives hijacked American foreign policy is a familiar one. With Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld leading the way, neocons working out of the office of the vice president and the Department of Defense orchestrated a spectacular disinformation operation, asserting that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed a grave and immediate threat to the U.S. Veteran analysts who disagreed were circumvented. Dubious information from known fabricators was hyped. Forged documents showing phony yellowcake-uranium sales to Iraq were promoted. What's less understood is that the same tactics have been in play with Iran. Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom. Meanwhile, a series of recent moves by the military have lent credence to widespread reports that the U.S. is secretly preparing for a massive air attack against Iran. (No one is suggesting a ground invasion.) First came the deployment order of U.S. Navy ships to the Persian Gulf. Then came high-level personnel shifts signaling a new focus on naval and air operations rather than the ground combat that predominates in Iraq. In his January 10 speech, Bush announced that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Middle East to defend U.S. allies—presumably from Iran. And he pointedly asserted that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops," a charge that could easily evolve into a casus belli. "It is absolutely parallel," says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist. "They're using the same dance steps—demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." The neoconservatives have had Iran in their sights for more than a decade. On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East. "It was the beginning of thought," says Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-American policy expert, who co-signed the paper with her husband, David Wurmser, now a top Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney. Other signers included Perle and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy during George W. Bush's first term. "It was the seeds of a new vision." Netanyahu certainly seemed to think so. Two days after meeting with Perle, the prime minister addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech that borrowed from "A Clean Break." He called for the "democratization" of terrorist states in the Middle East and warned that peaceful means might not be sufficient. War might be unavoidable. Netanyahu also made one significant addition to "A Clean Break." The paper's authors were concerned primarily with Syria and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but Netanyahu saw a greater threat elsewhere. "The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran," he said. Ten years later, "A Clean Break" looks like nothing less than a playbook for U.S.-Israeli foreign policy during the Bush-Cheney era. Many of the initiatives outlined in the paper have been implemented—removing Saddam from power, setting aside the "land for peace" formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon—all with disastrous results. Nevertheless, neoconservatives still advocate continuing on the path Netanyahu staked out in his speech and taking the fight to Iran. As they see it, the Iraqi debacle is not the product of their failed policies. Rather, it is the result of America's failure to think big. "It's a mess, isn't it?" says Meyrav Wurmser, who now serves as director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. "My argument has always been that this war is senseless if you don't give it a regional context." http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/...ouse200703?printable=true&currentPage=all
