board77

Iavas wrote:

Hmm.. I need to read up on the circumstances that allowed a seeming nut to gain control of Iran.

It never struck me as anything extraordinary. He was always a protégé of Ayatollah Khamenei, and Khamenei is the most powerful and influential an in Iran. He was well-known from his term as Mayor of Tehran, and his conservative, anti-US and anti-Israel views are popular in these turbulent times.

Iavas wrote:

Everything he's doing is playing into the neocons hands.

Why would a belligerent Iran benefit the neocons?

Incidentally, 3 things are scheduled to happen in March 2006. The Iranian oil-for-Euros bourse will begin trading, the Fed will stop releasing M3 numbers, and IAEA will meet regarding what to do with Iran.

Iran threat grossly exaggerated, say 70 percent of Britons

"Fool me once.."

Quote:

It never struck me as anything extraordinary. He was always a protégé of Ayatollah Khamenei, and Khamenei is the most powerful and influential an in Iran. He was well-known from his term as Mayor of Tehran, and his conservative, anti-US and anti-Israel views are popular in these turbulent times.

I wonder why he's so popular if he says things that put his people at risk?

Quote:

Why would a belligerent Iran benefit the neocons?

Because they want war with Iran, obviously. The rhetoric is exactly the same now as it was over Iraq, and we all know they did everything they could to make that happen. Let me ask you, after what happened with Iraq, are you going to trust everything the Bush Administration tells you about Iran? The British atleast are not falling for it - Blair really has his work cut out.

Quote:

Incidentally, 3 things are scheduled to happen in March 2006. The Iranian oil-for-Euros bourse will begin trading, the Fed will stop releasing M3 numbers, and IAEA will meet regarding what to do with Iran.

And also the Israeli elections? If Netanyahu gets in, things will get worse sooner rather than later.

Iavas wrote:

Quote:

Why would a belligerent Iran benefit the neocons?

Because they want war with Iran, obviously. The rhetoric is exactly the same now as it was over Iraq, and we all know they did everything they could to make that happen. Let me ask you, after what happened with Iraq, are you going to trust everything the Bush Administration tells you about Iran? The British atleast are not falling for it - Blair really has his work cut out.

Why would the Bush Administration possibly want war with Iran? It’s faced with a war-weary electorate, and doesn’t have the money or spare troops. That doesn’t mean that it won’t – only that it would be very foolish to do so. Granted, the Administration hasn't shown too much intelligence in its foriegn policy decisions so far, but would it really be so stupid as to quagmire itself in Iran as well as Iraq?

The Bush Administration had it in for Iraq from the get-go. Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined to finish what Bush 41 had stopped when he ended the first Gulf War. I haven’t seen evidence of a similar aversion to Iran. The President has threatened the country, sure, but in my opinion an invasion of Iran within the next year or so at least is in the ‘unlikely’ category. Air strikes – possibly. Invasion – unlikely IMHO.

Yesterday on this thread I came real close to saying it was about time for another bin Laden tape.

You're right, it's all so predictable. Just as predictable - while the tape is only "purported" to be Bin Laden, it will sink into public consciousness as 100% proof that Bin Laden is still out there hatching evil plots. I notice they are saying the tape dates from December, and they're not sure if Al-Qaeda or Al-Jazeera held on to it. I'd say there was another party deciding when to release it.. i.e. the party that forged it.

Quote:

Why would the Bush Administration possibly want war with Iran?

Lord_M, they want war with Iran because the more global strife they create, the more power they will gain domestically. To bring in martial law, they need a world crisis. They couldn't care less about the effects on the US people or the economy as long as those at the very top stay secure or even increase their riches through defense/reconstruction contracts and the oil business.


So I wonder, was the lone person who voted that war with Iran is important the same person that voted they trust the government 100% in the 9/11 thread?

Quote:

Why would the Bush Administration possibly want war with Iran? It’s faced with a war-weary electorate, and doesn’t have the money or spare troops.

Because his office runs out in a couple of years and he is running out of time to get the Apocylpse on the go

Nothing to do with his 'people' being rich in the US oil industry who are fed up with that disruption from those pesky Arabs, no siree.

Not sure who cast that single vote, I don't think it was me, but I see thier point.

A war with Iran is important, in that it will be a turning point in global history much more so than Iraq. It will bring in a new world order at it's conclusion.

The winning is also important, but that does not mean that the western powers will win it. If America win, we get another Iraq, if Iran wins, America will colapse both financially and civilly.

Foer the rest of the world, beside maybe China, there will be no winners.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

I'd say there was another party deciding when to release it.. i.e. the party that forged it.

I'm not going to assert that the US is forging the tapes or that it's holding bin Laden somewhere and forcing him to make them. For one thing, the content is always so bizarre and cryptic; it's not the sort of thing you'd expect an "reverse-propagandist" to come up with. But there's no getting around the fact that they always seem to emerge at convenient times.

It would also make sense to say that increasing tensions make BL more likely to do this sort of thing, but the tapes are usually said to have been made months in the past, before the tensions began to pick up.

Quote:

I'm not going to assert that the US is forging the tapes or that it's holding bin Laden somewhere and forcing him to make them. For one thing, the content is always so bizarre and cryptic; it's not the sort of thing you'd expect an "reverse-propagandist" to come up with.

A good reverse-propagandist would make you think exactly that Everything points to this tape being fake.

1. They were able to fake a video of Bin Laden after 9/11. I have documented the miniscule chances that it could be genuine in the 9/11 thread.

2. They wheeled out an old Bin Laden clip to help Bush before the 04 election. Not only did he look younger than 3 years before, but for someone supposed to be tuned in to US politics, he would have known that his appearance would help Bush not hinder him.

Likewise now, he would know that making threats against America only strengthens King George.

Another convenience of this tape:

Bush: So now you see why we gotta wiretap all you folks who like talking to the terrorismists!

Quote:

A good reverse-propagandist would make you think exactly that

Well sure; but that kind of argument isn't really useful (as I assume you understand, given the wink). Anyway, if it's going to follow pattern, the next step will be an alert for a "credible threat" against some target in the US with the concomitant increase in security and media coverage.

Quote:

Anyway, if it's going to follow pattern, the next step will be an alert for a "credible threat" against some target in the US with the concomitant increase in security and media coverage.

Not necessarily. We've already seen that even the MSM is looking out for links between terror alerts and the Bush Admins fortunes. If there are expected patterns, the planners need to mix them up to throw people off the scent. I have heard that there has been a general increase of security following the tape. Certainly, it's provided great fodder for the "threats we face today" rhetoric that's essential for the B.A.

As expected, Bush is exploiting the CIA-approved Bin Laden tape, using it to justify his extreme war-on-terror policies. Watch his approval rating start creeping up..



Pass the sick bag.

This is very scary.

[quote]57% Americans support military action in Iran
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
Published: January 27 2006 15:22 | Last updated: January 27 2006 15:22

WASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, the poll found, even though public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

The poll results suggest that the difficulties the United States has encountered in Iraq have not turned the public against the possibility of military actions elsewhere in the Middle East.
Support for a potential military confrontation with Iran was strongest among Republican respondents, among whom 76% endorsed the idea. But even among Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, 49% supported such action.

In follow-up interviews, some respondents said they believed Iran posed a more serious threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did.

“I really don’t think Saddam had anything to do with terrorism, but Iran, I believe, does,â€

Quote:

57% Americans support military action in Iran

I can't believe people are falling for the WMD trick again.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Quote:

57% Americans support military action in Iran

I can't believe people are falling for the WMD trick again.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Remember when Dubya couldn't recall that phrase? Hilarious.

That's exactly what I was referring to by using it

History has proven two things happen when a society/country is under stress and ready to colapse. It finds religion and becomes overly zealous in religion and goes to war.

My money is on Iran winning this war. We in America are a bunch of dumb asses if we think this is going to be easy and can win. But it gives idiot president the ability to declare has to have all emergancy power and the idiots that believe him will be clapping as they loose their freedoms. Me I'll be in Canada saying see what happens when you're a sheep.

According to the warmongers, an attack on Iran won't actually involve any invasion. It will involve sending jets out to bomb key sites.

Then, if Iran tries to retaliate, it will involve them invading Iraq and they can't succeed in that because we'll cut them to shreds as they try to invade.

That scenerio overlooks several key factors.

1 - The Iranians will incite the Shiite majority in Iraq to insurgency. Right now the insurgency is largely Sunni, a minority, and it's bad enough to really keep us busy. If the Shiites join the Sunnis against the US, we won't have spare manpower to worry about Iran.

2 - The Syria-Iran mutual defense treaty obliges them to both go to war against the US if the US attacks either of them. Syria will start actively supplying the Sunni insurgency.

3 - Iran might not attack the US in Iraq. They could fire missiles at Israel.

4 - I've talked about Venezuela before. China too.

5 - The UN won't buy it this time. Iran is allowed by the NPT to develop nuclear power, and the IAEA inspectors report finding no nuclear weapons development. Unlike the 15 second memory of the typical Bush supporter, the UN remembers the cat fight between the weapons inspectors of Iraq and the US reports on Iraqi weapons, and how the UN was proven to be right.

Boy the US is an evil country.