| |
 |
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 |
Let's be honest. Should Iran decide to stop its nuclear energy scheme, this would not deter the Bush regime from attacking Iran. It's as simple as this: the US is trying to form a US dominated zone from Syria (and Lebanon) and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan. The nations it still needs to subdue are Syria and Iran. The US wants a cordon that would be able to reach and control Russia, China and India.
It's a simple matter of power strategy. All the talk about danger, democracy and freedom is nonsense. The US never supported democracy anywhere. What they are after is economic influence. No more, no less. Which means the US will continue to destabilize the world. What dictators like Bush don't want to see is that they are ruining their own country. A stab at Iran may mean a stab in the heart of America.
If I may give my personal opinion: Bush is a power hungry emperor.
You can be sure that the disturbances in Syria and Lebanon are organized by the US, as are the 'peaceful revolts' elsewhere, such as Ukraine and Chechnya. The West is playing dirty around countries like Russia, China and India. The fifth columns are in place. The Berezovskys, Litvinenkos and their criminal ilk have the full support of the West. There is only one huge flaw in the whole US set up: they can't fight the whole world, certainly not at a cost that will ruin the US economy (and the world economy at that) and the US homeland.
Iran will be blamed under any pretext just to provide a rationale for another war.
When the chaos in Iraq is complete, the evil one sets his mind on Iran. In the meantime the US is plundering Iraq and the homeland. The US citizen has to bear the burden of all Bush's illegal and evil wars. The US citizen has to give his all, his money and his life for the benefit of the US oligarchy.
NewYorker: "In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran.
This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
'They're moving everybody to the Iran desk,' one recently retired C.I.A. official said. 'They're dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It's just like the fall of 2002' - the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, 'The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.'
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House's more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack 'by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.'
The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
Many in the French government have concluded that the Bush Administration has exaggerated the extent of Iranian meddling inside Iraq; they believe, according to a European diplomat, that 'the American problems in Iraq are due to their own mistakes, and now the Americans are trying to show some teeth. An American bombing will show only that the Bush Administration has its own agenda toward Iran.'
A European intelligence official made a similar point. 'If you attack Iran,' he told me, 'and do not label it as being against Iran's nuclear facilities, it will strengthen the regime, and help to make the Islamic air in the Middle East thicker'."
The real reason for the US to attack Iran would not be Iran's nuclear energy project or its purported support to the Iraqi insurgence, but the strategic wish of the US to control the whole area from the Mediterranean to the borders with Russia, China and India. That is why the US is creating havoc in Syria and wants to start a war with Iran. It's sheer evil power tactics.
NewsHog: "All the evidence suggests that Bush isn't bothered by the financial cost of war. He invests US treasure in Iraq regardless of the actual return and starves needed domestic spending in order to do so. The national debt in total and as a percentage of GDP has reached a record high entirely due to his Iraq adventure and Bush has only ever asked for more and more money - he hasn't even tried to cap the spending. Ergo financial cost is not his concern.
What about 'political' cost? Bush is not running for re-election. He's not particularly bothered about 'the future of the GOP' as an institution otherwise he'd modify some of his positions to help GOP candidates in the upcoming elections.
What about the 'cost' to the US military? Bush obviously isn't concerned about the sacrifices of the troops otherwise they would have been better equipped, the injured better cared-for, their rotations not constantly extended.
The neocons need a war with Iran to ensure their own future and to justify the current war and frankly to preserve their psychological and philosophical foundations."
ConsortiumNews: "I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
It's a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran's reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law.
And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves - they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree."
What is needed in America is a revolt on the highest level. Bush is a usurper and should be deposed as soon as possible. He is a danger to the world and to America.
11:54:09 AM 
|
|
© Copyright 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
