PDA

View Full Version : The spooky "sleazy slime" in the WH is pushing the simpleton one to attack Iran


Frankie
07-16-2007, 08:33 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2127343,00.html

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007

Guardian
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

noa
07-16-2007, 08:34 PM
God I hope Cheney doesn't win Bush over on this one.

a1na2
07-16-2007, 08:43 PM
I sure put a lot of credibility in that publication.

recxjake
07-16-2007, 09:44 PM
I think we should let Israel take care of this one.

Logical
07-16-2007, 09:45 PM
I would not worry unless you hear that the Navy has decided to leave the 3rd carrier in the Gulf.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 09:51 PM
I think we should let Israel take care of this one.

that would still cost US a fortune

recxjake
07-16-2007, 09:53 PM
The United States will not strike Iran by itself or anytime soon. We are not even close to an attack...

noa
07-16-2007, 09:54 PM
The United States will not strike Iran by itself or anytime soon. We are not even close to an attack...

Until your boy gets elected

recxjake
07-16-2007, 09:55 PM
Until your boy gets elected


Nope....

Logical
07-16-2007, 09:58 PM
I think we should let Israel take care of this one.Now you are just being politically ignorant. Israel cannot attack Iran and hope to survive in the Middle East.

noa
07-16-2007, 09:59 PM
Nope....


Norman Podhoretz is his senior foreign policy advisor.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139

I can put two and two together.

recxjake
07-16-2007, 10:00 PM
Norman Podhoretz is his senior foreign policy advisor.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139

I can put two and two together.

One ****ing guy is going to make Rudy attack Iran.... not even close.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 10:04 PM
Do you realize how MUCH of the Guardian's speculation....turns out to be absolute and utter crap, Frankie? Seriously. :shake:

noa
07-16-2007, 10:05 PM
One ****ing guy is going to make Rudy attack Iran.... not even close.

Time will tell...just pay attention to the rhetoric as the election comes closer. Rudy will be beating the war drums to get himself elected. Its a winning strategy for the neocons. "Stay on offense." Train the troops to "nation-build." What does all this add up to?

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 10:06 PM
Now you are just being politically ignorant. Israel cannot attack Iran and hope to survive in the Middle East.

:spock:

Wanna bet? The Israelis could turn Tehran into glass--and not even feel bad about it. :shake:

go bowe
07-16-2007, 10:32 PM
:spock:

Wanna bet? The Israelis could turn Tehran into glass--and not even feel bad about it. :shake:and they can't face the political and military firestorm that would follow any use of a new-clear bomb...

nobody wants to start world war 3, except for the jihad crowd...

i would think that all out war would immediately follow any use of a nuclear device and the world's wrath would be directed at the country that did it first...

maby...

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 10:45 PM
and they can't face the political and military firestorm that would follow any use of a new-clear bomb...

nobody wants to start world war 3, except for the jihad crowd...

i would think that all out war would immediately follow any use of a nuclear device and the world's wrath would be directed at the country that did it first...

maby...

Except THEY wouldn't give a shit; and they'd pull....a pretty convincing, "damn, our bad; sorry 'bout that."

All out war, IN the ME....maybe. The rest of the world would not be stupid enough, IMO, to get sucked into it.

JMHO :)

a1na2
07-16-2007, 11:30 PM
Except THEY wouldn't give a shit; and they'd pull....a pretty convincing, "damn, our bad; sorry 'bout that."

All out war, IN the ME....maybe. The rest of the world would not be stupid enough, IMO, to get sucked into it.

JMHO :)

Who else in the world has the ability to join in? Not many countries. I don't know what Israel's WMD's are number wise, but It is known that they have them. If Iran doesn't have them and launches an attack Iran will be a glass parking lot by the time the limited number of Israeli weapons are expended. It's my opinion that they will go all out full well knowing that once the nukes start flying the whole area is doomed.

The North Shore is looking better and better every day.

Logical
07-16-2007, 11:36 PM
:spock:

Wanna bet? The Israelis could turn Tehran into glass--and not even feel bad about it. :shake:If you believe the rest of the Middle East is going to ignore an attack on Iran I am shocked at your naivete.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 11:37 PM
Who else in the world has the ability to join in? Not many countries. I don't know what Israel's WMD's are number wise, but It is known that they have them. If Iran doesn't have them and launches an attack Iran will be a glass parking lot by the time the limited number of Israeli weapons are expended. It's my opinion that they will go all out full well knowing that once the nukes start flying the whole area is doomed.

The North Shore is looking better and better every day.

Yeah, I'd guess....they've embraced a Cold War "M.A.D." type mentality against the Arab countries, like Iran.

Given the track record of the Arab-Israeli conflicts in the past....I'd guess Iran becomes a major source of reflective/solar generated energy in a future, that will include the survival of the state of Israel....due to some incompetencies in Arab reprisals aimed at Israel that fail, UNLESS they are strapped to the bodies of 12 year old children headed to the town square.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 11:39 PM
If you believe the rest of the Middle East is going to ignore an attack on Iran I am shocked at your naivete.

Given the pathetic and abysmal record of Arab countries....who dare to challenge or provoke Israel, you are resigned to that sad old axiom....."Those who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it." ;)

If it were an NFL game, the opening line would be....Israel, by 10.5 points. :)

Logical
07-16-2007, 11:39 PM
Yeah, I'd guess....they've embraced a Cold War "M.A.D." type mentality against the Arab countries, like Iran.

Given the track record of the Arab-Israeli conflicts in the past....I'd guess Iran becomes a major source of reflective/solar generated energy in a future, that will include the survival of the state of Israel....due to some incompetencies in Arab reprisals aimed at Israel that fail, UNLESS they are strapped to the bodies of 12 year old children headed to the town square.

You have mouse dropping problems in your house again Kotter.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 11:41 PM
You have mouse dropping problems in your house again Kotter.

Nah. I'm just stirring the pot.

You understand the concept, quite well....I must say. ;)

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 11:42 PM
:spock:

Wanna bet? The Israelis could turn Tehran into glass--and not even feel bad about it. :shake:

Israel is small geographically but their military is NO doubt far superior to Iran's. I can't imagine any kind of a scenario where they would invade but their Air Force could kick the crap out of Iran and any above ground targets they have.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 11:42 PM
Now you are just being politically ignorant. Israel cannot attack Iran and hope to survive in the Middle East.

Jim, have you already forgotten 1967? Just a thought.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 11:44 PM
Israel is small geographically but their military is NO doubt far superior to Iran's. I can't imagine any kind of a scenario where they would invade but their Air Force could kick the crap out of Iran and any above ground targets they have.

Anything short of utter destruction of Iranian infrastructure....might even warrant serious consideration of a tactical nuke too. And they wouldn't blink an eye.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 11:51 PM
Anything short of utter destruction of Iranian infrastructure....might even warrant serious consideration of a tactical nuke too. And they wouldn't blink an eye.

Iran can't afford to fight a ground war. Their economy is in shambles in spite of the wealth they have taken in from oil revenues. They can't even keep enough gasoline in their own country because they have no refinery. Their people are pissed off about it. They have to IMPORT gas. Not a good situation to be in when fighting a war. Especially when a lot of your vehicles use GAS to operate.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 11:55 PM
Iran can't afford to fight a ground war. Their economy is in shambles in spite of the wealth they have taken in from oil revenues. They can't even keep enough gasoline in their own country because they have no refinery. Their people are pissed off about it. They have to IMPORT gas. Not a good situation to be in when fighting a war. Especially when a lot of your vehicles use GAS to operate.

Like I said, I'll take the Israelis in this one....by a TD and a FG....plus. :shrug:

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 11:57 PM
Iran can't afford to fight a ground war. Their economy is in shambles in spite of the wealth they have taken in from oil revenues. They can't even keep enough gasoline in their own country because they have no refinery. Their people are pissed off about it. They have to IMPORT gas. Not a good situation to be in when fighting a war. Especially when a lot of your vehicles use GAS to operate.

I agree. Iran will use spies and agents to fight Israel. No ME country has the power or the balls to fight an open war against the US or Israel. They'd rather preach it to the masses and have the idiots and fools in their population blow themselves up while they escape in burkas with the women and children.

noa
07-17-2007, 12:01 AM
I agree. Iran will use spies and agents to fight Israel. No ME country has the power or the balls to fight an open war against the US or Israel. They'd rather preach it to the masses and have the idiots and fools in their population blow themselves up while they escape in burkas with the women and children.


Yep. They can just keep sending money and arms to Hamas and Hezbollah and encourage them to do the dirty work. Not really a winning strategy, but that seems to be their MO.

Mr. Kotter
07-17-2007, 12:06 AM
Yep. They can just keep sending money and arms to Hamas and Hezbollah and encourage them to do the dirty work. Not really a winning strategy, but that seems to be their MO.

Maybe. But Israel seems to be running out of patience, permitting that crap too. If Netanyahu wins the next election, Damascus and major Saudi cities might just be next.... :shrug:

CHIEF4EVER
07-17-2007, 12:09 AM
Maybe. But Israel seems to be running out of patience, permitting that crap too. If Netanyahu wins the next election, Damascus and major Saudi cities might just be next.... :shrug:

I doubt that. They have no relations with Damascus and Saudi is an indirect trading partner for the lucrative produce market. I agree that Israel is sick of terrorist attacks by Hezbollah.

Logical
07-17-2007, 12:25 AM
Jim, have you already forgotten 1967? Just a thought.

Egypt attacked Israel, not the other way around. Israel being the aggressor would make a huge difference.

Mr. Kotter
07-17-2007, 12:28 AM
Egypt attacked Israel, not the other way around. Israel being the aggressor would make a huge difference.

It's you who is making the assumption here; I ASSUME Israel would be attacked, or as some say....is currently under attack.

All it would take is tying it to Tehran, which under current circumstances is NOT a reach. :hmmm:

Logical
07-17-2007, 01:46 AM
It's you who is making the assumption here; I ASSUME Israel would be attacked, or as some say....is currently under attack.

All it would take is tying it to Tehran, which under current circumstances is NOT a reach. :hmmm:

Do you really think that the Islam radicals are going to draw a distinction if Israel attack Iran which contain some of their most holy sites and Ayatollahs?

Logical
07-17-2007, 01:50 AM
Nah. I'm just stirring the pot.

You understand the concept, quite well....I must say. ;)I try to remain credible when stirring the pot.

Mr. Kotter
07-17-2007, 07:31 AM
I try to remain credible when stirring the pot.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Duck Dog
07-17-2007, 08:18 AM
The spooky "sleazy slime" in the WH is pushing the simpleton one to attack Iran

That's sounds straight out of Baghdad Bob's arsenal.

Duck Dog
07-17-2007, 08:40 AM
Time will tell...just pay attention to the rhetoric as the election comes closer. Rudy will be beating the war drums to get himself elected. Its a winning strategy for the neocons.


Now you are just being politically ignorant.

Frankie
07-17-2007, 10:03 AM
Except THEY wouldn't give a shit; and they'd pull....a pretty convincing, "damn, our bad; sorry 'bout that."

All out war, IN the ME....maybe. The rest of the world would not be stupid enough, IMO, to get sucked into it.

JMHO :)
Mr Kotter, you went through the windshield in the accident, didn't you? :p

Frankie
07-17-2007, 10:05 AM
Iran can't afford to fight a ground war. Their economy is in shambles in spite of the wealth they have taken in from oil revenues. They can't even keep enough gasoline in their own country because they have no refinery. Their people are pissed off about it. They have to IMPORT gas. Not a good situation to be in when fighting a war. Especially when a lot of your vehicles use GAS to operate.
Very informed post.

go bowe
07-17-2007, 11:40 AM
Jim, have you already forgotten 1967? Just a thought.i dunno...

the iranans didn't get into the '67 war, or did they?

seems like iran might have more than enough troops to just about obliterate israel in a ground war...


israel is strong militarily, but weak in numbers...

Mr. Kotter
07-17-2007, 11:50 AM
i dunno...

the iranans didn't get into the '67 war, or did they?

seems like iran might have more than enough troops to just about obliterate israel in a ground war...


israel is strong militarily, but weak in numbers...

Iranian gas supply problems, tactical nukes....could even the playing field. :hmmm:

I'm just sayin'....

go bowe
07-17-2007, 02:08 PM
i still say that anybody who talks about using a nuclear bomb in the me is totally insane...


totally, 103% batshit crazy, with paranoid tendencies...

go bowe
07-17-2007, 02:09 PM
oil

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:27 PM
Iran can't afford to fight a ground war. Their economy is in shambles in spite of the wealth they have taken in from oil revenues. They can't even keep enough gasoline in their own country because they have no refinery. Their people are pissed off about it. They have to IMPORT gas. Not a good situation to be in when fighting a war. Especially when a lot of your vehicles use GAS to operate.


"I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you"

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 02:51 PM
i dunno...

the iranans didn't get into the '67 war, or did they?

seems like iran might have more than enough troops to just about obliterate israel in a ground war...


israel is strong militarily, but weak in numbers...

The geography doesn't work. Iran can't project their troops into Israel. It's too far away and if they loaded them up in planes (which I doubt they have) the Israelis and possibly the US Air Forces would shoot them down before they even got close.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:22 PM
The United States will not strike Iran by itself or anytime soon. We are not even close to an attack...

If I were you I wouldn't make any assumptions. I continue to believe that Cheneyburton couldn't push the envelope any further but they continue to surprise and confound me. This administration has proven my own reliable instincts to be worthless when calculating how far they can push without the American people putting a stop to the idiocy.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:27 PM
Nope....

Especially if your boy gets elected. Bush has no political capital left. He'll do it out of nothing to lose. But Giuliani will be given the same benefit of the doubt that any new leader will be given because the general public will be unaware the Giuliani is Bush Lite, the next empty suit to continue pressing the neocon agenda.

Giuliani will be able to vault us into the next phase of the neocon plan because he will be given the slack that Bush has used up.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:33 PM
:spock:

Wanna bet? The Israelis could turn Tehran into glass--and not even feel bad about it. :shake:

No doubt. But the problem is that a war between Israel and Iran will further harden the entire region against us. In their eyes, Israel and the US are both enemies joined together to subjugate their way of life.

IMO, we don't need to solidify that region against us anymore than we already have.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:34 PM
and they can't face the political and military firestorm that would follow any use of a new-clear bomb...

nobody wants to start world war 3, except for the jihad crowd...

i would think that all out war would immediately follow any use of a nuclear device and the world's wrath would be directed at the country that did it first...

maby...

It would accomplish the same thing our ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq has accomplished. Only ten times more severe.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:38 PM
Jim, have you already forgotten 1967? Just a thought.

This is a different time. Israel is seen as an equal partner in trying to impose our will on that region. The entire Middle East is no longer in the mood for our bullshit any longer. If we want to make a historically catastrophic mistake, then by all means attack Iran.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:40 PM
Maybe. But Israel seems to be running out of patience, permitting that crap too. If Netanyahu wins the next election, Damascus and major Saudi cities might just be next.... :shrug:

You're not kidding. Let's hope that Netanyahu doesn't get elected. We need more calm and composure, not more bravado and inflammatory leadership.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:45 PM
That's sounds straight out of Baghdad Bob's arsenal.

Actually, this administration and it's minions have been mimicking Baghdad Bob for a couple years. While things have continually worsened in Iraq, The Bush Administration has been either in absolute denial or in total scam mode.

penchief
07-17-2007, 07:45 PM
oil

bingo

Frankie
07-18-2007, 08:53 AM
Actually, this administration and it's minions have been mimicking Baghdad Bob for a couple years. While things have continually worsened in Iraq, The Bush Administration has been either in absolute denial or in total scam mode.
Never thought of the association before. But it's so true.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 09:15 AM
bingo
I don't buy the oil claim. It's an anti-capitalist claim.

We buy most of our oil from Canada. In fact our top 4 suppliers only include
one ME supplier which is Saudi Arabia. The goal is regime change as per PNAC.
Because Iran is cooperating even more fully allowing inspections into areas they would not allow before...yet we still get the drum-beat to war despite carrying out a covert war in Iran first.

Even Pat Buchanan is claiming that a Gulf of Tonkin incident may be engineered
during the Congressional recess. Apparently, per him, that incident was conducted taking advantage of a recess. No one to stop them.