US prepares to Launch War on Iran

[jjw1965]

Prof. Niloufer Bhagwat | October 02 2005

The recent Resolution of the IAEA is preparation for War. The voting pattern on the Resolution against Iran is significant. But what is even more significant - that people all over the world including in the anti-war movement in the United States are against the sanctions and war against Iran, as it is no longer possible to camouflage the real reasons for the war against countries which possess significant oil and gas reserves.

No words on the issue can be more authoritative than the declaration of the anti -war movement of the United States which has pronounced unequivocally that:

" It is incumbent on us to reject the notion that small countries must disarm and leave themselves defenseless at the demand of the Pentagon. Such demands are not only hypocritical, irrational, and unjust, they amount to little more than a pretext for invasions and occupations."

Contemporary history informs us that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a decision taken by the military-industrial complex of the United States and that Depleted Uranium (DU) radioactive munitions - a war against the planet - has been used in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan by the very countries, which have Sponsored the IAEA resolution and WHICH HAVE done nothing to disarm Israel of nuclear weapons including DU [Israel] used in the region.

Recently in a statement which was not true to the record, issued by the parties involved in the six party discussions in respect of the move to disarm North Korea, it was stated that the government of the United States does not have nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula or on bases in that region. Deliberately attempting to mislead world opinion now wholly aware that these nuclear weapons are based on submarines, and used in bombing sorties from aircraft carriers.

It is indicated that the representative from India on the IAEA voted for the Resolution, however India has a coalition government as no party has a majority in Parliament. Yesterday there was an official announcement of a 62 member bloc of left parties which supports the government, that is - without the support of this bloc the government does not have a majority, that this political group does not support the government on this issue and is against the Resolution passed by the IAEA on Iran. This would render the vote a nullity.

This is apart from the fact that the large majority of people in India are against the policy of using Resolutions of the IAEA and Security Council to impose sanctions which are a declaration of war, followed by actual invasion and military occupation.

Eminent leaders of India like Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party they led, opposed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime on principle as it stood for a discriminatory regime of some nations permitted to threaten the weak with nuclear weapons, not permissible by the Charter of the United Nations; it has now been converted into a criminalized regime of blackmail against developing countries.

Historically it is time to remember the elimination of the Native Americans, the Red Indian Tribes of the Continent of North America, the aborigines of Australia, the Indian communities of Latin America, to prevent the decimation of people of various nations in this - another barbaric period of world history when decaying systems covet the resources of the world.

The historical record shows that in the elimination of these peoples every single treaty was violated and every concept of humanity.

I wish to communicate this to the people of Iran, traumatized for several decades of the last century for their petroleum resources, that this Resolution is a preparation for a brutal war with the distinct possibility of nuclear and other weapons - a direct cause of global warming destroying vast regions of the world.

People all over the world who desire to protect the planet earth should be more than concerned about these developments, which indicate beyond doubt that systems in place are hurtling towards destruction no matter what the cost.

In solidarity with the people of Iraq and Iran.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Was waiting for something along these lines to emerge.........just didn't know which country from the inner circle of war mongers would cast the accusation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4312516.stm

The Brits accuse Iran......

 

[no1important]

RE: US prepares to Launch

Russia and US disagree over Iran

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has openly clashed with Russia over whether Iran can pursue a nuclear energy programme.

In talks with Russian officials in Moscow, Ms Rice said Iran needed to recognise its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, told reporters that Tehran had the right to enrich uranium.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

US meets UK to discuss action against Iran




Rice seeks UK support over Iran

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is meeting Tony Blair at Chequers for talks over Iran.

They are expected to be discussing Iran's nuclear programme and how they hope to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, which it denies wanting to do.

Ms Rice told the BBC Iran should end support of the insurgency in Iraq, and become "good neighbours" instead.

Ms Rice's visit is part of a European tour to gather support for encouraging Iran to return to international talks.

Blast kills four

It comes as the British embassy in Tehran issued a statement denying involvement in the bombing of a shopping centre in Ahvaz on Saturday.

Four people died and many more were injured in the city, near Iran's southwestern border with Iraq, Iranian state television reported.

It was in Ahvaz that six bombs exploded in June, killing at least 10 people. A senior official said Americans were behind those attacks and also suggested that Britain might be involved - but gave no evidence to support his claims.

Ms Rice told the BBC the insurgents in Iraq would fail.

"The insurgency can't ultimately survive without a political base," she said.

However, she declined to say how long she thought the insurgency would last, but added that it was fair to ask the British and American people to support the Iraqis "so that we can finish this job".

Britain believes that Iran is backing the insurgency in Iraq with technical help.

Ms Rice, who arrived in London on Saturday, said: "I have every reason to believe that the British are right about this.

"I trust the British on this issue because the British are operating in the south, they know the situation."

'Considerable influence'

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the government had presented forensic evidence to Iran which showed a link between the radical Islamic group, Hezbollah, and attacks on coalition troops.

He said: "We look to the Iranians to desist from anything they have been involved in the past and to use their very considerable influence with Hezbollah to ensure that this continued use of Hezbollah technology stops in Iraq."

Mr Straw also said the British and American governments were in agreement over how to deal with Iran's nuclear programme.

He said: "My own belief is that military action in respect of the nuclear dossier is inconceivable.

"One of the reasons that it is inconceivable is that it is not on anybody's agenda."

The Iranian ambassador in London, Dr Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli, insisted his country did not support the use of violence against British troops in Iraq.

He also denied his country was causing trouble in Iraq as a response to criticism of its nuclear programme.

He told the BBC Britain and Iran had talked about the attacks through diplomatic channels, and he was suspicious that Britain was highlighting its complaints to put pressure on Iran.

He rejected Washington's belief that Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons, and said it needed nuclear energy to replace oil stocks when they ran out.

'Right to enrich'

With voting on Iraq's constitution on Saturday, Ms Rice welcomed the referendum exercise as evidence the country was moving towards a democratic future.

She said the country could emerge as a "centrepiece for a different kind of Middle East".

Asked if she took responsibility, as a key architect of the war, for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis as well as nearly 2,000 American personnel and British soldiers, she said she took joint responsibility for a policy that would ultimately see the world as a safer place now and for the next generation.

BBC correspondent Jonathan Beale said the American government had a "loyal ally" in Mr Blair over negotiations aimed at persuading Iran not to develop its own nuclear fuel cycle.

But the US had suffered a setback in talks with Russia, he added.

Moscow gave no indication that it would support a move to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.

"Russia says it has questions about Iran's intentions but insists that Tehran still has a right to enrich uranium," said our correspondent.

Meanwhile, Ms Rice said she would be taking Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to her home city of Birmingham, Alabama next week.

drums of more war???

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

nah......just tough talk trying to get Iran to abide by intl law....there won't be no war .....mark my words....we just need to get Iraq stable...and we got bout 3 more years to do it although the president is in a rough patch right now....

 

[jjw1965]

nah......just tough talk trying to get Iran to abide by intl law....there won't be no war .....mark my words....we just need to get Iraq stable...and we got bout 3 more years to do it although the president is in a rough patch right now....

You honestly think it can be done in 3 years? :roll:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Tony Blair increases pressure on Iran

CATHERINE MacLEOD, UK political editor October 17 2005




IN YOUR AREA

Weather
- please select - Aberdeen Aviemore Campbeltown Dumfries Dunbar Dundee Edinburgh Falkirk Fort William Glasgow Hawick Inverness Kilmarnock Kirkwall Lerwick Oban Peebles Perth Portree St Andrews Stirling Stranraer Thurso Tiree Ullapool

Local News Search
-- please select -- All Scotland Aberdeen (City) Aberdeenshire Angus Argyll and Bute Borders Clackmannanshire Dumfries and Galloway Dundee (City) East Ayrshire East Dunbartonshire East Lothian East Renfrewshire Edinburgh (City) Falkirk Fife Glasgow (City) Highland Inverclyde Midlothian Moray North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Orkney Perth and Kinross Renfrewshire Shetland South Ayrshire South Lanarkshire Stirling West Dunbartonshire West Lothian Western Isles (Na H-Eileanan Siar)














Copyright © 2005 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved
Sitemap :: Subscription :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use


THE war of words between the West and Iran escalated yesterday with Tony Blair warning Tehran about its possible involvement in insurgent bomb attacks in Iraq.
As Condoleeza Rice, US secretary of state, met Mr Blair at Chequers as part of a European tour to pile pressure on Iran to return to international talks on its nuclear programme, the Iranians accused the US and British governments of fabricating a case against them.
Sections of the state media in Iran blamed Britain for fatal explosions in Iran on Saturday. According to reports two home-made bombs detonated in rubbish bins killing five people and injuring more than 80 in Ahvaz, an oil city in the south-west of the country. The British Embassy in Tehran rejected the allegations.
Both the US and British governments believe Iran is hiding its weapons' development behind its nuclear power programme. It has refused to suspend uranium enrichment or to allow full UN inspections.
Tensions were further fuelled yesterday by allegations that former members of the Russian military have been helping Iran to obtain the technology needed to produce missiles capable of striking European capitals.
Ms Rice visited Moscow on Saturday but failed to persuade Russia to back a referral of Iran to the Security Council. Reports that the Russians were acting as a go-between with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated in 2003 only exacerbated an already delicate diplomatic situation.
Apart from confirming that Ms Rice and Mr Blair discussed Iran and Iraq, Downing Street released few details after the meeting.
The most pressing complaint about Iran, and one to which the prime minister referred last week, concerned evidence that Iran or its Lebanese Hizbollah allies were the source of sophisticated technology used in roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which killed British soldiers in southern Iraq.
Speaking in London, Ms Rice said: "We have tried to deliver a message . . . about this issue of IEDs in southern Iraq. We have channels with which to do it. But we use them sternly and pretty specifically to deliver messages."
Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli, the Iranian ambassador in London, angrily denied that his country supported the use of violence against British troops in Iraq since stability in Iraq was in Iran's best interest.
He said it was not surprising some explosive devices found in Iraq were similar to Iranian devices because weapons from the two countries' eight-year war still littered the region. He added that he was suspicious of the charges being raised at this time.
He said: "This leads us to at least think . . . this is used to put pressure on Iran over nuclear matters."
Later, Jack Straw, foreign secretary, insisted that Britain had evidence linking Iran or Hizbollah to insurgent activity in Iraq.
"What we have presented to the Iranians is evidence which in our judgment clearly links the improvised explosive devices which have been used against British and other troops mainly in the south of Iraq to Hizbollah and Iran.
"We look to the Iranians to desist from anything they have been involved with in the past and to use their very considerable influence with Hizbollah to ensure this continued use . . . stops in Iraq," he said.
Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, said responsibility for the bombs in Ahvaz was under investigation. "Unlike the British we are not going to express our views without necessary investigations," he said.
A British Embassy spokesman in Tehran said: "Any linkage between the British government and these terrorist outrages is certainly without foundation."
Mr Asefi said that Tehran was keen to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme but would not agree to the EU's key demand that it halt all nuclear fuel activities before talks can resume.
"The (UN Security) Council cannot be used as a Sword of Damocles against Iran. We cannot be threatened by referral," he added.
THE war of words between the West and Iran escalated yesterday with Tony Blair warning Tehran about its possible involvement in insurgent bomb attacks in Iraq.
As Condoleeza Rice, US secretary of state, met Mr Blair at Chequers as part of a European tour to pile pressure on Iran to return to international talks on its nuclear programme, the Iranians accused the US and British governments of fabricating a case against them.
Sections of the state media in Iran blamed Britain for fatal explosions in Iran on Saturday. According to reports two home-made bombs detonated in rubbish bins killing five people and injuring more than 80 in Ahvaz, an oil city in the south-west of the country. The British Embassy in Tehran rejected the allegations.
Both the US and British governments believe Iran is hiding its weapons' development behind its nuclear power programme. It has refused to suspend uranium enrichment or to allow full UN inspections.
Tensions were further fuelled yesterday by allegations that former members of the Russian military have been helping Iran to obtain the technology needed to produce missiles capable of striking European capitals.
Ms Rice visited Moscow on Saturday but failed to persuade Russia to back a referral of Iran to the Security Council. Reports that the Russians were acting as a go-between with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated in 2003 only exacerbated an already delicate diplomatic situation.
Apart from confirming that Ms Rice and Mr Blair discussed Iran and Iraq, Downing Street released few details after the meeting.
The most pressing complaint about Iran, and one to which the prime minister referred last week, concerned evidence that Iran or its Lebanese Hizbollah allies were the source of sophisticated technology used in roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which killed British soldiers in southern Iraq.
Speaking in London, Ms Rice said: "We have tried to deliver a message . . . about this issue of IEDs in southern Iraq. We have channels with which to do it. But we use them sternly and pretty specifically to deliver messages."
Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli, the Iranian ambassador in London, angrily denied that his country supported the use of violence against British troops in Iraq since stability in Iraq was in Iran's best interest.
He said it was not surprising some explosive devices found in Iraq were similar to Iranian devices because weapons from the two countries' eight-year war still littered the region. He added that he was suspicious of the charges being raised at this time.
He said: "This leads us to at least think . . . this is used to put pressure on Iran over nuclear matters."
Later, Jack Straw, foreign secretary, insisted that Britain had evidence linking Iran or Hizbollah to insurgent activity in Iraq.
"What we have presented to the Iranians is evidence which in our judgment clearly links the improvised explosive devices which have been used against British and other troops mainly in the south of Iraq to Hizbollah and Iran.
"We look to the Iranians to desist from anything they have been involved with in the past and to use their very considerable influence with Hizbollah to ensure this continued use . . . stops in Iraq," he said.
Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, said responsibility for the bombs in Ahvaz was under investigation. "Unlike the British we are not going to express our views without necessary investigations," he said.
A British Embassy spokesman in Tehran said: "Any linkage between the British government and these terrorist outrages is certainly without foundation."
Mr Asefi said that Tehran was keen to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme but would not agree to the EU's key demand that it halt all nuclear fuel activities before talks can resume.
"The (UN Security) Council cannot be used as a Sword of Damocles against Iran. We cannot be threatened by referral," he added.
THE war of words between the West and Iran escalated yesterday with Tony Blair warning Tehran about its possible involvement in insurgent bomb attacks in Iraq.
As Condoleeza Rice, US secretary of state, met Mr Blair at Chequers as part of a European tour to pile pressure on Iran to return to international talks on its nuclear programme, the Iranians accused the US and British governments of fabricating a case against them.
Sections of the state media in Iran blamed Britain for fatal explosions in Iran on Saturday. According to reports two home-made bombs detonated in rubbish bins killing five people and injuring more than 80 in Ahvaz, an oil city in the south-west of the country. The British Embassy in Tehran rejected the allegations.
Both the US and British governments believe Iran is hiding its weapons' development behind its nuclear power programme. It has refused to suspend uranium enrichment or to allow full UN inspections.
Tensions were further fuelled yesterday by allegations that former members of the Russian military have been helping Iran to obtain the technology needed to produce missiles capable of striking European capitals.
Ms Rice visited Moscow on Saturday but failed to persuade Russia to back a referral of Iran to the Security Council. Reports that the Russians were acting as a go-between with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated in 2003 only exacerbated an already delicate diplomatic situation.
Apart from confirming that Ms Rice and Mr Blair discussed Iran and Iraq, Downing Street released few details after the meeting.

Blair doing the goose step to the rhythm of bush inc.??

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Anti-Iran propaganda indicates war is imminent




*** An analysis of recent American and British rhetoric exhibits the hallmarks of pre-war propaganda. The evidence strongly indicates that the allies have set a course for war with Iran. ***

Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in the Middle East

The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.

Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed military action as "inconceivable" while both the American president and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the agenda. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities before.

It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this political process point to the fact that India itself has developed nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.

The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention in Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US refused to control Iraq's borders in April 2003, Iranian backed militia have dominated the south and, with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a population of millions, the British army had little option but to go along. No fuss was made until now. As for the bombings of British soldiers, some sources familiar with the US army engineers report that these supposedly sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside Iraq for many months and do not need to be imported.

But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling? The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack.

But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street, if not the Foreign Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat. The regime in Tehran continues to demand the destruction of the state of Israel and to support anti-Israeli forces. In what appeared to be coordinated releases of intelligence assessments, Israeli and US intelligence briefed earlier this year that, while Iran was years from a nuclear weapons capability, the technological point of no return was now imminent.

Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines, while Iranian air defences are still mostly based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation.

The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all. US action is often portrayed as impossible, not only because of the alleged lack of firepower, but because Iranian facilities are too hard to target. In a strategic logic not lost on Washington, the conclusion then is that if you cannot guarantee to destroy all the alleged weapons, then it must be necessary to remove the regime that wants them, and regime change has been the official policy in Washington for many years.

For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few facilities have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact. They allow the regime too many retaliatory options. Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia influence in Iraq would want any attack to be decisive. From this logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west. Some Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis of oil-rich Khuzestan breaking away too.

A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency. Mr Ritter is one of the US analysts, along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations that Washington is going to war with Iran.

For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years. With regard to Mr Blair's position, it would be helpful to know whether he has committed Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb "come what may" as he did with Iraq.

IS the us THREAT to Iran REAL or just pumped up threat talk???

 

[GL Schmitt]

Re: RE: US prepares to Launch War on Iran

. . . the president is in a rough patch right now....

If nothing else, I DO admire your way with an understatment.

For a moment there, you almost sounded British.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Invading Iran: Who Is to Stop Them?
by Joshua Frank
by Joshua Frank



If the Bush administration wants it, they’ll get it. The threat of hurricanes and indictments isn’t going to stop these crazy guys. Nor will the Democrats, France, or that fallible United Nations. Nope, nothing is going to step in their way. Even if what they want is war on Iran.

Last week in London, US Ambassador John Bolton expressed his disappointment with the UN Security Council for their "failure" in dealing with Iran’s alleged nuclear threat. Bolton all but threatened military action, deliberately implying that the US government would take matters into their own hands if the UN wouldn’t.

It may seem inconceivable that the US government would even be considering using military force against Iran at this point. US troops are already overextended and public opinion about the current war is at an all-time low. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has thus far refused to charge Iran with breaking a single commitment under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Surely this can’t be the best climate to start another war in the Middle East.

Too bad facts don’t matter to the neocons.

During his same visit to London, Bolton and Tony Blair’s dubious team persuaded the IAEA – along with India – to overrule UN inspectors in Iran and declare the country in breach of the non-proliferation treaty, which would bring the matter before the Security Council. India signed on, even though they are producing nuclear weapons and have yet to accept the treaty themselves. In a lot of ways it is Iraq all over again: Discount the weapons inspectors and move ahead as planned.

The officials in Tehran aren’t helping their cause much, though. But perhaps they saw what happened to Saddam when he bent over and touched his toes for the US government prior to the invasion. Iran is still calling for the annihilation of Israel, and Bush and his buddies in Tel Aviv love it. Of course, the Iranian government believes they’re being threatened – Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Even Vice President Dick Cheney has warned of Israel’s threat to Iran.

As UK author Dan Plesch recently wrote in the Guardian Unlimited:

"Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines, while Iranian air defenses are still mostly based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation."

It wasn’t long ago that Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker warned of Bush’s desire for a quieter gentler war in Iran – not anything like the Shock and Awe of Iraq. Hersh relayed that the Bush administration hopes covert ops and smart bombs alone can topple the religious leadership in the country and that the hawks at the Pentagon don't think there will be any need for an extended occupation. They think it’ll be quick and easy, nothing like the mess in Iraq.

Don’t count on Bush to bring the American public into this whole non-debate. He knows after what he’s put them through (not to mention the Iraqis) they aren’t about to be snookered into supporting another war with a country that is posing absolutely no threat to US sovereignty. Karl Rove doesn’t need to spell out that one for him. No, this time around they’ll be no resolution in Congress and no CNN footage when the missiles first drop.

There is little doubt John Bolton and the UK’s maneuvering at the UN is only serving as a silly ruse. The UN is already irrelevant when it comes to policing the United States imperial ventures, and he knows it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, whether or not Bush was planning military action against Iran and Syria. Rice answered sternly, "I don't think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force."

In the end, Bolton and the administration he represents will do what it wants. Even if it’s war on Iran.

October 21, 2005

.........and that is what makes the neo cons a lethal./dangerous /insane LOOSE CANNON on this planet. (Bolton is fecking scary)

 

[Tresson]

Re: RE: US prepares to Launch War on Iran

nah......just tough talk trying to get Iran to abide by intl law....there won't be no war .....mark my words....we just need to get Iraq stable...and we got bout 3 more years to do it although the president is in a rough patch right now....

What a joke. What right does the US have to tell anyone else that they have to follow international law when they aren't following it themselves. That, I believe, is the biggest crime that Bush an Co. are responsible for. The break down in the rule of law between nations.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US prepares to Launch War on Iran

nah......just tough talk trying to get Iran to abide by intl law....there won't be no war .....mark my words....we just need to get Iraq stable...and we got bout 3 more years to do it although the president is in a rough patch right now....

What a joke. What right does the US have to tell anyone else that they have to follow international law when they aren't following it themselves. That, I believe, is the biggest crime that Bush an Co. are responsible for. The break down in the rule of law between nations.

Tresson: Absolutely SPOT ON. Seems the US just takes whatever it fecking well wants , breaks whatever laws it fecking well wants and does whatever it fecking well wants now........... A dangerous loose cannon........which is essentially lawless .---as they are making up laws, ignoring laws, dismissing laws as they fecking well see fit for their own purposes. They could care less about anyone or anything on this planet. It is only what they want at the moment that matters to them......and if they have to KILL to get it......no big deal for them. People like HItler would be green with envy if he could watch these bozos operate.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Once a rational person realizes that our government has lied or bent the truth – as all governments do – in order to look better or to present matters in a more flattering light, then one will begin to see everything differently, including current events. Naturally, the consideration of any question of how humans will act in or react to a given situation requires the use of one’s common sense; it makes sense that any government would try to make itself look better by hiding the truth from the public.

This article is another exercise in asking the reader to consider events leading up to and concerning World War II, while using historical fact and common sense in the consideration of these events.

The purported reasons for war – any war – as presented by a government for public consumption are obviously quite different than the real reasons. Just one moment’s consideration of the details surrounding the current debacle in Iraq should make this fact of life apparent.

So what’s new? When has any government ever told its electorate the truth about war?

Previously, I presented some ugly truths about American involvement in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Quotes from high-ranking US government officials – civilian and military – showed that US involvement did not exactly stem from the Japanese bombing of a US military base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and that the United States was deeply involved in empire-building in Asia well before entering the war. One of my main points was that the attack on Pearl Harbor was used as the excuse; historical fact would show the real reasons.

Americans need to realize that the United States was, and still is, expanding and interfering in the business of other nations – as it has had the reputation of doing since 1846. The widely used excuse for this land grab is "manifest destiny." Manifest destiny was a phrase used to express the belief that the United States was chosen by God to spread its form of democracy across North America and to the Pacific Ocean. All empires use ridiculous catch phrases to soothe the minds of their ill-informed public. America’s manifest destiny of the 19th and 20th centuries mirrors the insanity spouted by President George W. Bush today.


American Progress by John Gast (1872)

Some Americans today (as well as people from other nations) are wondering why the United States thinks it has to be the policeman for the world. This is an old question. Since when are the internal affairs of other nations a legitimate concern for the USA? The painfully obvious answer to this is that the government of the United States will consider the domestic affairs of other nations to be its business up to and until the day the USA stops empire building. And why not? High-ranking government officials don’t normally send their kids off to die in wars; high-ranking government officials are always in bed with arms and weapons manufacturers and always looking for a way to line their pockets. The governments start the wars and the people pay the price.

Before discussing the real reasons for then-President Harry S. Truman dropping atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, another deeper look at historical fact is called for. Investigation will show that the reason for the war with Japan starting was not the bombing of the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor; it was the clash of the US and Japanese empires in Asia.

Pre-World War Two US Empire-Building in Asia

More undeniable proof of US imperialism in Asia well before Franklin Roosevelt became president comes with a close look at the "Boxer Rebellion" in China that began in November of 1897 and ended in June of 1900. This rebellion by the Chinese to throw out Western imperialist forces was brutally crushed by an eight-nation alliance of Japanese, Austro-Hungarian, British, French, German, Italian, Russian and American troops.

The United States was able to play a significant role in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion because of the large number of American ships and troops deployed in the Philippines as a result of the US conquest of the islands during the Spanish American War (1898) and subsequent Philippine insurgent activity.

Troops from all nations engaged in plunder, looting and rape.

~ Boxer Rebellion

Get that? Troops from all nations engaged in plunder, looting and rape. That would include the Land of the Free and the so-called Arsenal of Democracy.

In the final battle of the Boxer Rebellion, US troops killed anti-imperialist/pro-Chinese dynasty forces as well as innocent civilians.

Another of the more disturbing American empire-building phases was its colonization of the Philippines. Not only was the US government involved with imperialism; then, as today, it committed atrocities including the massacre of civilians. Throw on top of this that the US government was lying about the entire affair and not paying American troops properly, and you have a rather faithful reflection of what is going on with the US empire today:

In December, 1898, the US purchased the Philippines and other territories from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of 20 million US dollars, after the Spanish were defeated in the Spanish-American War. The US made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared independence on June 12 of 1898. The United States sent over 11,000 ground troops to occupy the Philippines.

Tensions between the Filipinos and the American soldiers on the islands existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by the feelings of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos by their former allies, the Americans. Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier named Robert William Grayson shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into American-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war. US President William McKinley later told reporters that the insurgents had "attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines. The Battle of Manila (1899) that followed caused thousands of casualties for Filipinos and Americans alike.

The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit," and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by American veterans of the action.

In 1900, the Philippine army was ordered to engage in guerilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerilla war the Americans lost nearly 500 men killed or wounded. The Filipino resistance fighters began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.

The shift to guerilla warfare however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthless than before. They began taking no prisoners, scorching whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians may have died in these camps.

In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerillas. As a result, many of the Filipino guerillas felt obligated to surrender, in order to stop the suffering the war was causing to their own people…

Some Americans, notably William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and other members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. Other Americans mistakenly thought that the Philippines wanted to become part of the United States. Anti-imperialist movements claimed that the United States had betrayed its lofty goals of the Spanish-American War by becoming a colonial power, merely replacing Spain in the Philippines… As news of atrocities committed in subduing the Philippines arrived in the United States, support for the war flagged…

In 1908, Manuel Arellano Remondo, in a book entitled General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: "The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number."

~ The Philippine-American War

The US government calling the war an insurrection, to make it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila? The American government not declaring war so as to sidestep liability claims by American veterans of the action? The US Army taking no prisoners, burning down villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos? Thousands of civilians dead in US concentration camps? This undoubtedly shows that the United States was involved with empire-building in Asia – as well as cheating and lying to its own soldiers and to the American public – long before the start of World War II.

War crimes, atrocities, killing civilians, annexing territory… so what’s the difference between the US empire in 1900 and today? Not much. Same story, different day. Even Mark Twain wrote at the time:


(I used to be) a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific ... Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? ... I said to myself, "Here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American Constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves."

But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem."

It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land."

~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

UK wants Israel to destroy Iran nuclear sites




*** The British regime is claiming that the Iranian President has threatened to have Israel "wiped off the map". The quote has been cited in almost every corporate news outlet in the US and UK, but on TV news reports the footage of the incident always mysteriously stops just before the words "wiped off the map" are actually spoken, and the report switches to alternative pictures and on-screen text or a voiceover. The TV news this evening's news from the BBC, Britain's state-owned media network, interpreted this as a veiled threat that"military action" may be taken unless the Iranian regime "changes its ways". But a report in the late evening news on BBC 1, which compared Blair's strong words to his rhetoric before the war on Iraq, concluded that military action is not a likely course of action "for the UK". Perhaps the UK is expecting Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, as it has done in the past. ***

Mr Blair said the sentiments were 'totally unacceptable'

Tony Blair has expressed "revulsion" at the Iranian president's assertion that he wanted Israel "wiped off the map".

bush and blair being the 'pals" they are....... would have no problem setting up Isreal to do the job. (or initiate some action. and Israel has the capability)

gosh, things are very sensitive on the international scene. Feathers are ruffled mighty easily. Anger is erupting in words.