Intel Vets Question the Iraq-UK Crisis - Now it's DW vet's turn

[101Scout]

I almost completely support this article's views concerning this 'Blair/Bush' Balleyhoo against Iran!!! Reverse the sitaution and you'd have our 'forces' shoving this up Iran's ass with their Iranian detainees! Hell, there would probably be splinters of a boat floating in the Gulf waters also!! This is nothing but 'pilling on' by BushCo and BlairCo after the whistle has been blown. It's building on it's 5th or 6th trigger for why to bomb Iran all to hell. This is another costly bullshit war about to start, and the end results will not be good for all of mankind at all!

Thanks VIPS!



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


Intel Vets Question the Iraq-UK Crisis

From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

There is real danger that this incident, and the way it plays out, may turn out to be outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s last gesture of fealty to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and “neo-conservative” advisers who, this time, are looking for a casus belli to “justify” air strikes on Iran.

Bush and Cheney no doubt find encouragement in the fact that the Democrats last week refused to include in the current House bill on Iraq war funding proposed language forbidding the White House from launching war on Iran without explicit congressional approval.

If the Senate omits similar language, or if the prohibition disappears in conference, chances increase for a “pre-emptive” US and/or Israeli strike on Iran and a major war that will make the one in Iraq seem like a minor skirmish. The impression, cultivated by the White House and our domesticated media, that Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority states might favor a military strike on Iran is a myth.

But the implications go far beyond the Middle East. With the Russians and Chinese, the US has long since forfeited the ability, exploited with considerable agility in the 70s and 80s, to play one off against the other. In fact, US policies have helped drive the two giants together. They know well that it’s about oil and strategic positioning and will not stand idly by if Washington strikes Iran.

By:

Ray Close, Princeton, NJ
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, MD
David MacMichael, Linden, VA
Ray McGovern, Arlington, VA
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, MN

Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS)

[The_Bammo]

I almost completely support this article's views concerning this 'Blair/Bush' Balleyhoo against Iran!!! Reverse the sitaution and you'd have our 'forces' shoving this up Iran's ass with their Iranian detainees! Hell, there would probably be splinters of a boat floating in the Gulf waters also!! This is nothing but 'pilling on' by BushCo and BlairCo after the whistle has been blown. It's building on it's 5th or 6th trigger for why to bomb Iran all to hell. This is another costly bullshit war about to start, and the end results will not be good for all of mankind at all!

Thanks VIPS!



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


Intel Vets Question the Iraq-UK Crisis

From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

There is real danger that this incident, and the way it plays out, may turn out to be outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s last gesture of fealty to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and “neo-conservative” advisers who, this time, are looking for a casus belli to “justify” air strikes on Iran.

Bush and Cheney no doubt find encouragement in the fact that the Democrats last week refused to include in the current House bill on Iraq war funding proposed language forbidding the White House from launching war on Iran without explicit congressional approval.

If the Senate omits similar language, or if the prohibition disappears in conference, chances increase for a “pre-emptive” US and/or Israeli strike on Iran and a major war that will make the one in Iraq seem like a minor skirmish. The impression, cultivated by the White House and our domesticated media, that Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority states might favor a military strike on Iran is a myth.

But the implications go far beyond the Middle East. With the Russians and Chinese, the US has long since forfeited the ability, exploited with considerable agility in the 70s and 80s, to play one off against the other. In fact, US policies have helped drive the two giants together. They know well that it’s about oil and strategic positioning and will not stand idly by if Washington strikes Iran.

By:

Ray Close, Princeton, NJ
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, MD
David MacMichael, Linden, VA
Ray McGovern, Arlington, VA
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, MN

Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS)

Bro', this remind you of something? LOL

Gulf of Tonkin!!!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Bush says Iran must release "hostages"

Sun Apr 1, 2007 12:39AM BST
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
By Jeremy Pelofsky CAMP DAVID,

Maryland (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Saturday that Iran's detention of 15 British sailors and marines was inexcusable and called on Tehran to release "the hostages" immediately.
The standoff, which has helped push oil prices to six-month highs at a time of heightened Middle East tensions over Iran's nuclear program, showed no signs of easing.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused London of mishandling the aftermath of the March 23 capture of the British personnel in the northern Gulf after Britain expressed concern over Iranian "sabre rattling."
Iran's ambassador to Moscow said the 15 Britons could face punishment if found guilty of illegally entering the Islamic republic's territorial waters.
Britain, the biggest ally of the United States in the war in Iraq, insists its sailors were seized well within Iraqi waters while on a U.N.-backed mission to search for smugglers.
Bush said he supported Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to resolve the matter peacefully and rejected the idea of swapping Iranians held by the United States in Iraq for the detained Britons.
"The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent," Bush told a news conference at the Camp David presidential retreat with visiting Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

1 | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[101Scout]

Gulf of Tonkin!!!

It sure does Bro! This entire ordeal between the Brits and Iran smells like a complete set up to me. So much a set up I wouldn't put it past Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being a part of this as well. Wasn't Khamenei visiting in the US less than 2 mths ago which was odd to many that he'd even be here in the states? There could be all sorts of deals being made with these 'leaders' on all sides to work up a war that continues to hook our treasury dept into this deeper than it is now with Iraq and Afghanistan. I know this may sound a little far fetched Bro, but we are dealing with insane power hungry greedy bastards, who we know as BushCons and with AIPAC right there in the thick of it all, because events involving Iran is getting way too obvious having the looks of being scripted ahead of time.

Something else to think about Bro. There's been little mentioning, if any at all, about exchanging out the captured Marines with the captured Iranians inside Iraq. The added on Marine's confessions to date have gone to the extreme of looking overly scripted, when at first, the confessions by the female Marine seemed more natural. It's as if the Iranains now are trying to make sure that these Marine's confessions are 'obviously prompt' on purpose.

Then Blair shows no signs of deliberating fairly, only pushing ahead full bore against Iran when so much is at stake by waring with Iran. That's not natural. That's not showing any compassionate concern by leaders in that this could be very dangerous for everyone. This all has the stinch of Bush and Cheney all over it.... now being instigated by poodle boy Blair now.

Then we all have known for some while that plans for air strikes against Iran has been on the table for more than a year ... possibly two years that has made it to some news prints. We've all been waiting for it to happen while BushCo built up their triggers for doing it.

[Trap]

Don't forget,
The US forces raided and 'took' several Iranian personnel from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad several months ago.

Iran wants their people back too.

[101Scout]

Don't forget,
The US forces raided and 'took' several Iranian personnel from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad several months ago.

Iran wants their people back too.

That's correct Trap. By the way, have you read much of anything about the Iranians asking for an exchange/swap for their captured Iranians with the British detainees that they now hold?

[big sky brad]

Well, Blair is stepping down in a couple of months, so Bush will be alone, all alone, as the only leader of any country in the entire world that thinks invading Iraq was a good idea, and that we should just "stay the course".

[The_Bammo]

Blackmailing IranThere are strong indications that George W. Bush is planning to attack Iran and thereby repeat the mistakes he made in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled Congress and the United Nations Security Council will have a portion of the blame. The biggest blame, however, will go to Israel.

Recent events have pulled the cover of hypocrisy from the Democrats', particularly US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, face. Surprising (isn't it?) that Pelosi, who made so much noise against the war in Iraq and in favour of a US withdrawal from there has written Bush a carte blanche for attack on Iran?

How did this happen? The answer is the Israeli lobby. For a long time, Israel has been complaining about Iran's (non-existent) nuclear threat and prodding the US Congress, a.k.a. Israeli-occupied territory, to approve a surgical strike against that nation's nuclear facilities in Arak, Natanz and Bushehr. Tel Aviv has threatened that a US failure to take out the Iranian reactors will leave it with no option but to take care of the job itself. On June 7, 1981 Israel warplanes had destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. That illegal but highly successful attack has become the stuff of Israeli folklore. Can Israel re-employ that tactic against Iran? In the least, it cannot be discounted.

Here is how Pelosi shed her dovish persona and became a hawk overnight. In mid-March, she attended an event of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the dreaded Israeli lobby, to pay political homage. In a speech to AIPAC, Pelosi criticised the war effort in Iraq, inviting boos from some of the pro-Israel audience. Feeling politically scathed, Pelosi ran back to the Congress and stripped a provision from the $100 billion Iraq funding bill that would have forced President Bush to come to the legislature before launching an all-out war against Iran.

Why did Pelosi capitulate? She was reportedly under pressure from some conservative members of her own party, as well as the neocons and AIPAC. The headline of a recent article by conservative commentator, Patrick Buchanan called Pelosi the 'AIPAC girl'. Buchanan, a one-time American presidential candidate and a well-connected columnist, should know.

Pelosi and fellow Democrats have shown their Machiavellian side in other ways. While continuing to oppose the war in Iraq, the Democrats have approved more money for Iraq's occupation and pushed for greater military engagement in Afghanistan. Seen against this backdrop their passage of a bill in the House of Representatives in late March that requires most combat American troops to come home by March 2008 seems, at best, a doublespeak.

But there is a catch. The plan does not call for a complete withdrawal of US occupation forces from Iraq under any circumstances. Rather, it leaves the option for thousands of American soldiers to stay behind under various pretexts: training Iraqi forces, conducting the 'war on terror', and protecting American facilities, including a massive new embassy. Americans would never voluntarily leave the lucrative Iraqi oil fields for others to dominate.

The feckless United Nations continues to be pushed around by the US. On March 24, the Security Council passed a resolution to impose additional sanctions against Iran for its refusal to cease uranium enrichment. The new sanctions ban arms exports to Iran, and freeze the assets of 28 people and organisations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programmes.

Understandably, the sanctions prompted an angry response from Iran. "The world must know -- and it does -- that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands", Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote. "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution".

Sanctions cannot be a solution if they ignore the legitimate rights of Iran. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty signed by Iran, Tehran is authorised to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. However, if it could be clearly determined that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, sanctions could be imposed. The UN nuclear regulatory body, IAEA, has made no such determination.

Israeli opposition to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is based on bloated fear. Countries acquire nuclear weapons to deter their formidable foes. By many accounts, Israel already possesses, thanks to American and British aid, a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons along with their delivery systems. Conspicuously, there is no talk of inspecting Israeli nuclear facilities and ridding Middle East of nuclear missiles. Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was hushed up when he suggested that Israel's nuclear capability should also be looked into.

Even though Iran has categorically denied pursuing atomic weapons, its acquisition of such arms can be fully justified on the grounds of nuclear deterrence against archenemy Israel. The Israeli weapons of mass destruction can reach any Muslim land, including Iran. Given the Israeli aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, and its threat of attacking Iran, Tehran has every right to prepare itself.

During the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union had aimed thousands of long-range nuclear missiles at each other, it was the fear of MAD, or the Mutual Assured Destruction, that kept them from pulling the trigger.

The concept of nuclear deterrence has prompted other countries to develop atomic weapons. China acquired nuclear arms to deter the United States, while India followed suit as a safeguard against China, and Pakistan acquired nuclear-weapons capability to keep India at bay.

No matter what Iran's real intentions, Tehran needs to act and speak wisely. Inflammatory remarks, like its president's threat to wipe Israel off the world map, only play into the hands of America's pro-Israel lobby. Tel Aviv had successfully used the late Saddam Hussein's threat to burn Israel to push for an American invasion of Iraq.

Any attack on Iran by US or its bully, Israel, would send the Middle East spiralling out of control. Iran enjoys a pivotal position in today's Iraq. Washington cannot even reasonably succeed in Iraq without Iranian cooperation.

The same neocons and the pro-Israel lobby that had pushed for an American attack against Iraq are now advocating military action against Iran. At least one neocon had predicted that the invasion of Iraq would be a 'cakewalk'. Instead, it became a trail of blood and tears for America, with more than 3,000 US soldiers killed and many thousands maimed. The Iraqi death toll since the invasion, according to one estimate, exceeds half a million.

An attack on Iran would be catastrophic for the United States, whose armed forces are stretched to the limit and are physically and emotionally scarred in the Iraq theatre. While Israel may rejoice over the destruction of Iranian nuclear installations, an attack on Iran will spell disaster for America and the world: untold bloodshed, volatile Middle East, and record-high oil prices.

What Washington really needs is a one-on-one talk with Tehran about the nuclear issue. The United States cannot have it both ways, extend nuclear cooperation to India, a non-NPT signatory, and penalise Iran, which has signed the non-proliferation agreement, for conducting permitted uranium enrichment.

In a deal that Washington signed last year with India, New Delhi will receive nuclear fuel and technology from the US on the condition that it opens its civilian nuclear facilities for international inspection. The agreement is a farce, because it does not include India's eight officially designated military nuclear plants. What guarantee is there that India will not divert some of the nuclear materials from civilian to military use?

It is understandable that, regardless of which party is in control in Washington, the US will do what's in America's best interest. Can we, then, blame Iran for pursuing what's best for her?



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[101Scout]

Blackmailing IranThere are strong indications that George W. Bush is planning to attack Iran and thereby repeat the mistakes he made in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled Congress and the United Nations Security Council will have a portion of the blame. The biggest blame, however, will go to Israel.


How did this happen? The answer is the Israeli lobby.


The feckless United Nations continues to be pushed around by the US. On March 24, the Security Council passed a resolution to impose additional sanctions against Iran for its refusal to cease uranium enrichment. The new sanctions ban arms exports to Iran, and freeze the assets of 28 people and organisations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programmes.

Your article nails it bro. Check out how the US cornered Iran per Michel Chossudovsky. Check out the red highlights from that article. I bet many of these cold war idiots from the Reagan era and current BushCons who have been pushing aggressive actions towards Russia and China under the GOP flag all along. They want Iran and Russia.... then China. Stupid bastards! Talk about the impossible mission!!



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


Iran is Politically Isolated

Iran is politically isolated. Unilateralism prevails within the corridors of the UN as well as within the Middle East war theater.

The US sponsored resolution in the United Nations Security Council received unanimous support. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution were discarded, following US pressures. The text of the resolution was adopted unanimously.

Neither Russia nor China, which have extensive military cooperation agreements with Iran, exercised their veto, nor did they abstain.

This UN Security Council "consensus" was reached following crucial shadow diplomacy by Washington to secure the unanimous support of the entire Council including its five permanent members plus Germany, which participated in the formulation of the draft resolution in separate consultations.

The UN resolution has totally isolated Iran: China and Russia have been drawn into an alliance of stealth with the US.

What is crucial in the Security Council Resolution is that neither China nor Russia will intervene on Iran's side, if Iran is attacked. Moreover, while Russia and China are diplomatic partners of the US in the UN sponsored economic sanctions regime, they are the object of US military threats as confirmed by Operation Vigilant Shield 07. The latter are war game scenarios conducted from September to December 2006, which explicitly target not only Nemesis (North Korea) and Irmingham (Iran) but also Ruebek (Russia) and Churia (China),

One would expect that separate "deals" were reached respectively with China and Russia, where certain commitments were met in bilateral discussions by Washington. Both Beijing and Moscow, which are partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in an overtly ambiguous situation of turning a blind eye to US military threats, while also supporting the Iranian military in building its air and ground defense systems in the eventuality of US-NATO-Israeli attacks on Iran, which has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has supported Iran's ballistic missile technology, in negotiations reached in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.

Ironically, coinciding with the UN Security Council decision in late March, the Russian press confirmed that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is actually considering an enlargement, which could consist in granting full membership to countries in the SCO (e.g. Iran) which have currently the status of observers.

Meanwhile, the US Congress is at war with the president regarding America's Iraq war strategy, but not a word is muttered on an impending war againsat Iran, as if it were totally irrelevant.

The threats are real, an incident could trigger a war.

The war criminals in high office desperately need this war to stay in power.

The US Congress is unlikely to be able in a minimum way to reverse the decision to go to war with Iran, despite the fact that this would lead to a worldwide catastrophe, an escalation of the war, with an impending police state in America to support the militarization of civilian institutions

[The_Bammo]

Don't forget,
The US forces raided and 'took' several Iranian personnel from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad several months ago.

Iran wants their people back too.

Bush and the U.S. has no intention of releasing those Iranians Trap.

If another place does something they are chastised by the U.S., if the U.S. does the same thing its for the good of mankind.

Hang Tough ~

[The_Bammo]

Your article nails it bro. Check out how the US cornered Iran per Michel Chossudovsky. Check out the red highlights from that article. I bet many of these cold war idiots from the Reagan era and current BushCons who have been pushing aggressive actions towards Russia and China under the GOP flag all along. They want Iran and Russia.... then China. Stupid bastards! Talk about the impossible mission!!



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


Iran is Politically Isolated

Iran is politically isolated. Unilateralism prevails within the corridors of the UN as well as within the Middle East war theater.

The US sponsored resolution in the United Nations Security Council received unanimous support. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution were discarded, following US pressures. The text of the resolution was adopted unanimously.

Neither Russia nor China, which have extensive military cooperation agreements with Iran, exercised their veto, nor did they abstain.

This UN Security Council "consensus" was reached following crucial shadow diplomacy by Washington to secure the unanimous support of the entire Council including its five permanent members plus Germany, which participated in the formulation of the draft resolution in separate consultations.

The UN resolution has totally isolated Iran: China and Russia have been drawn into an alliance of stealth with the US.

What is crucial in the Security Council Resolution is that neither China nor Russia will intervene on Iran's side, if Iran is attacked. Moreover, while Russia and China are diplomatic partners of the US in the UN sponsored economic sanctions regime, they are the object of US military threats as confirmed by Operation Vigilant Shield 07. The latter are war game scenarios conducted from September to December 2006, which explicitly target not only Nemesis (North Korea) and Irmingham (Iran) but also Ruebek (Russia) and Churia (China),

One would expect that separate "deals" were reached respectively with China and Russia, where certain commitments were met in bilateral discussions by Washington. Both Beijing and Moscow, which are partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in an overtly ambiguous situation of turning a blind eye to US military threats, while also supporting the Iranian military in building its air and ground defense systems in the eventuality of US-NATO-Israeli attacks on Iran, which has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has supported Iran's ballistic missile technology, in negotiations reached in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.

Ironically, coinciding with the UN Security Council decision in late March, the Russian press confirmed that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is actually considering an enlargement, which could consist in granting full membership to countries in the SCO (e.g. Iran) which have currently the status of observers.

Meanwhile, the US Congress is at war with the president regarding America's Iraq war strategy, but not a word is muttered on an impending war againsat Iran, as if it were totally irrelevant.

The threats are real, an incident could trigger a war.

The war criminals in high office desperately need this war to stay in power.

The US Congress is unlikely to be able in a minimum way to reverse the decision to go to war with Iran, despite the fact that this would lead to a worldwide catastrophe, an escalation of the war, with an impending police state in America to support the militarization of civilian institutions

Good post Bro', if that don't open anyone's eyes nothing will, until the blast is heard!

Seriously Bro', makes a lot of damn sense .

Hang Tough ~