Evaluating Iran's Missile Threat
"BY RICHARD L. GARWIN
The United States wants to use technology that doesn't work to stop an Iranian missile threat that doesn't exist."
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/a7v4162714u42202/fulltext.pdf
http://www.thebulletin.org/ The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Report: Billions in defense spending unchecked
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90U74D01&show_article=1
Planned US Israeli Attack on Iran: Will there be a War against Iran?
by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8861
Oh c'mon. I know you really don't want my opinion on this ;D
The problem is, if we wait until 2015 for them to have the technology, it is far too late. I am much more worried about a cargo ship delivered bomb than a missile.
So, being the sensitive sort, I have a simple four step program since they seem intent on developing high grade nuke material, and have vowed to use it against us and Israel.
1) Kick their A$$ back to middle ages technology-wise.
2) Take oil to pay for it.
3) Leave. Tell them to forget the nukes and behave, and police themselves.
4) Monitor closely and repeat as necessary.
Trying to run a politically correct war does nothing but get our troops killed. It is also what causes budgets to get over run. War should be waged all out or not at all.
Okay libs, flame on.
[slap] [noidea' [toilet]
Was a staunch right wing conservative Republican just 4-5 yrs ago... seems some of this administration's antics have caused me to go "Constitutional" ... certainly not a liberal or democrat... [yuk]
I dont think were going to do anything other than rattle the sabers.
I dont think the US has any support internationally for another war. So what if they have nukes, we have nukes, Isreal has nukes, China, Russia, and a long list. Having nukes is not a crime anymore than having a gun in your house is a crime. The world will not support this, it will be looked upon like the Nazi invasion of Europe. Here in the US, there is no support for another war either. With things slowing, people are having a difficult time keeping their heads above water and are not interested in going to war again with someone who has not harmed us. The existing administration has zero credibility and no one belives the propaganda. It's over for these clowns and they know it.
First off, I agree that Bush is a joke, and also I see plenty of support for removing the Iranian threat.
I am frightened that many don't see the risk of a country that has vowed destruction on the US and allies working to obtain the power to easiliy carry out that threat, and to poison the globe in the process. They want nukes as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. That cannot be allowed.
I agree that we can not afford another war to be run like the one that we are currently in.
I suspect that Israel will be the ones to initiate the resolution to this problem. (I also suspect that I may be the most conservative person on this board. I do find some quite a bit of good ideas from libetarians though...)
Frank, I think the threat is mainly trumpeted by the mainstream media who are parrots for the current administration. They keep the bogeyman stories going so the portion of the public that will believe them will be scared.
If it were not for the current idiots in office I doubt there would be any threat. Look who the ones are that are currently terrorizing the world -- it is our leaders in the quest for power, oil and world dominance.
We are poisoning the globe. We have dumped depleted uranium all over the globe.
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2001/nn11107.htm
We are poisoning our own soldiers, their wives, their children their futures.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james29.htm
QuoteThere are three effects of depleted uranium on biologic systems –radiation, chemical and particulate. The particulate effect of nano-sized particles is the most important of these three. This appears immediately after exposure and targets the master code of DNA. Simply stated depleted uranium "trashes the body." The DNA damage is so severe these patients develop multiple simultaneous cancers from different causes. This new syndrome has never been reported before and is unique to internal depleted uranium exposure. Such patients were seen in civilians in Yugoslavia after NATO bombing using DU bombs. There is currently an epidemic of cancer in Iraqi children.
Another horrifying consequence of DU exposure is damage to sperm causing many severe deformities in the children born to veterans of the first Gulf War. A group of 251 soldiers from Mississippi, who all had normal babies before service in Iraq, were studied. Sixty seven percent of their post war babies were born with severe birth defects. These children were missing legs, arms, organs or eyes and had immune system and blood diseases. In some Gulf War veterans families the only normal children are those who were born before serving in Iraq. The Department of Defense denies any knowledge of birth defects in Gulf War I veterans.
(http://www.p10k.net/Images/du_baby.jpg)
From link below.
QuoteThe horrifying reality of these birth defects is that midwives are purported to have said they no longer look forward to births as.... "We don't know what's going to come out."
http://www.p10k.net/ken_human_guinea_pig.htm
Quote"May God bless each and every one of them." Cursed is more like it. I ultimately participated in the Gulf War massacre. Today, I consider this a shamefully ignorant act on my behalf. My stupidity was rewarded by experiencing first hand, the ground war that began a month later. During this "war" I was exposed to the combat environment of retreating Iraqi soldiers. For this, my unit (2cd Battalion 4th Marines) was awarded a "Combat Action Ribbon." And it is combat conditions that provided the greatest exposure for ground troops to Depleted Uranium (DU), something we knew nothing about at the time. As you know, DU dust is produced via armor-piercing munitions used by the US and Britain. It is an undeniable fact that Bush Sr. was fully aware that the sons and daughters who were the nations finest were unwittingly being exposed to DU, something that has caused immense pain and suffering for Americans, but even more hideously, for Iraqi mothers and fathers and their children. I believe this is proof positive that Bush Sr. is a most dishonorable man at least, or a war criminal that is responsible for mass murder of his own "sons and daughters" at worst. I will charge the latter.
"Tests show Gulf War victims have uranium poisoning" - The Sunday Times (London) September 3rd 2000
American and British forces fired more than 700,000 DU shells during the conflict. This amounts to approximately 315 tons of DU dust left by the use of DU ammunition. 600,000 soldiers including myself were not warned of DU hazards in the Gulf. It is this Depleted Uranium dust that may ultimately lead to my death. My "blessing" as a US Serviceman.
You are right that Israel may start it and drag us into it like the slobbering puppy dogs we are. Fewer of us are wanting to go willingly.
They probably won't be able to poison the world - our fearless leaders have already done that.
Mission Akomplished. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ&feature=related
Note - that (the above) was only what was admitted in the first gulf war massacre. Since then we have presented the world and our servicemen with hundreds of tons more of it. We still offer no protection for our servicmen as officially there is not a problem.
QuoteUS forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in 1991. The actual figure is closer to 800. Also the US used 200 tons more in Baghdad alone during the recent invasion with a total of 1500 tons in all of Iraq. And this time it wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons but was extended to guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities. This means that Iraq's cities have been blanketed in lethal particles. Japanese professor, Dr. Yagasaki, calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The US has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. The "smog of war" from the 1991 Gulf War was found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. In addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the deadly particles higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that billions of deadly particles have been carried high into the air swept worldwide by the winds. In June 2003, the WHO announced in a press release that global cancer rates will increase 50% by 2020. In 1997, while citing experiments in which 84% of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of lung cancer, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington said: "The US Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body." Dr. Durakovic's UMRC (Uranium Medical Research Center) research team also conducted a 3 week trip to Iraq Oct/03 in 10 cities, including Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. He said preliminary tests showed that the air, soil and water samples contained "hundreds to thousands of times" the normal levels of radiation. Durakovic told The Japan Times: "They are hampering efforts to prove the connection between DU and the illness." Since then, Dr. Durakovic was warned to stop his work, then he was fired from his position, then his house was ransacked, and he has also repeatedly received death threats. www.sfbayview.com/du
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-paulinson161106.htm
You can find alarmist information on both sides it appears, as well as discrediting reports pro / con. There are many times that I don't know how to interpret this data, as claims and counter claims are rampant. One guy says this, another guy says that. The Countercurrents.org blog is not exactly a scientific / impartial source, much like Michael Moore's efforts. (Neither is the right wing propoganda machine)
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18725103.200-depleted-uranium-exposure-should-not-increase-cancer-risk.html
Here's a link regarding depleted uranium & our Vets... http://www.news-journalonline.com/special/uranium/ Several scientists remark on the effects of DU.
I was working at the VA in a primary care clinic after the Gulf War I... I saw many veterans - male & female, who had been very healthy going into the short time of combat & were very ill with chronic diarrhea, muscle wasting, memory problems, deformed babies being born... it was very sad - the military totally denied that these veterans had anything wrong with them, although they clear DID have something wrong with them. It's like the Vietnam war & Agent Orange. My dad had constant rashes after coming back from there, he died of esophageal cancer - don't know if that had anything to do with it, I rather doubt it, but there have been several veterans that I personally know - one was an LVN that I worked with for years who died of leukemia/lymphoma 4-5 yrs ago, another nurse's husband died 3 ys ago of leukemia/lymphoma & one of the nurses I currently work with - her husband has been battling the same thing for the past 2-3 yrs... the military finally recognizes that different types of leukemia & lymphoma can be caused by the Agent Orange, also skin conditions & adult onset diabetes.
Here's a link to effects of radiation on the human body... http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffects.shtml
You are right, Shooter - it is so difficult to tell the spin from the truth. I listen to a lot of "right wing Christian" talk shows & often wonder just where they are getting their info - especially when it comes to Israel, Iran, Muslims, etc. I've also read books on missionaries who have gone to Palestine to minister to the Christians there & they paint a whole different picture - one eye opening book I read was called Light Force by Brother Andrew. He has been smuggling Bibles & ministering to persecuted Christians for 40 yrs all over the world - the old Soviet Union, China, Palestine etc. Then I listen & read some of John Hagee's stuff - my dad faithfully watched him on TV everyday - I would consider what he has to say as "hate speech" - there is some truth, but most of it is totally taken out of context or scriptures are twisted... It's amazing to me - I'm certainly not an expert, but golly gee, I often wonder where people are coming from... I read a lot of Christian websites that say the opposite of what the Right wing Christians are saying & I tend to believe them - http://www.newswithviews.com/ is one site I really like. I also read http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ - they are kinda in the middle, I read the GOP site, a lot of sites that some would consider "conspiracy" sites; sometimes even listen to a little bit of FOX news :o :o usually over the net just to hear what stuff they are saying... I pray that I am not deceived by any of them. One thing I would say, being a Christian... Christ said to go out & share the Gospel or "good news" of salvation to all the world - how can we do that by killing everyone & coercing them to live like us - our example & love should draw them in, not our hatred, torture & death... so I sorta judge what the "Christian leaders" are saying by that standard... the "world" may have a whole different set of standards... anyway, that's where I'm at...
I'm going to sit this one out...except to say that I agree with some of what everybody has said but every damn word Muldoon posted!
I'm not right or left though depending on the topic I may come off as such -- you could call me anti-authoritarian or anarchist or anti-political. I don't want or need any of the thieving, lying. money grubbing power mongers.
Quote2) Take oil to pay for it.
Re-reading, Frank -- I picked this up --- This is precisely what we are doing now with Iraq -- oh -- but wait a minute -- they lied again. Looks like none of the money had to be accounted for so -- wonder what happened to it. hmm
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
QuoteBefore the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-02.htm
Left - right or center -- if they are politicians you can't trust them.
Oooh, I missed this because I was off in the mountains; so I'll comment as a Johnny Come Lately...
I'm in the same corner as Frank on this. I don't trust Iran with nuclear devices given the talk that comes out of that country.
EDIT: I previously mistyped Iraq when I meant Iran and didn't notice it. Sorry. d*
Iran I'll bet :) ...but given the BS coming from our figure head, can you blame them? Would you protect yourself if You were threatened weekly then attacked on your own soil?
We should go beat up, bomb and kill everyone else in the world because they threatened us back after we threatened them multiple times. Oh yeah -- right -- I forgot ...it is OK if they have oil.
But North Korea has actually threatened us back with nukes after dubya said he despised their leader and made threats at them. Oh yeah -- but we don't have to do anything to them because they do have nukes and they don't have oil. Yup it all makes good sense to me. [crz]
That would make me want to get nukes. :)
Do you really think we started the problem? (Considering their holy book calls for our destruction? What... that was written after George Bush became president?)
I'm okay with nukes as defensive deterrents.
This is not the case for Iran.
Once they use one, it is far, far too late.
A nuke is the ultimate hammer. Given the instability of the typical radical muslim, they will pull that hammer out the instant they get pissed, which seems to be at least once every day. Or they will provide them to a group that will use them in a terrorist fashion.
I've heard some very sobering things about Iran's development. Such as that it is so far underground that it will take a nuke to penetrate and stop them. Or an all out ground effort to reach the site.
Neither is palatable, but even worse is the idea of them having nukes.
We tend to pussyfoot around, until problems get out of hand. This is comparable to finding a cockroach in your kitchen and not doing anything for months. Here we are, twiddling our thumbs again.
Does anyone remember how flag waving we were after 9/11? People driving around in trucks with three big American flags waving behind, flags everywhere... talk shows filled with patriotism and everyone "proud to be an American"? What a bunch of hypocrites we all are.
If you think that George Bush is the reason for the hate pointed toward us, you have not been paying attention to history. George has only been an international problem for ~8 years.
Why do we have to have extreme damage inflicted on our own in order to engage our paternalistic instincts? Here is a sworn enemy of the west who has vowed our destruction. They have proven their intent by violent action before. The ONLY thing that has kept them from being successful is that they lacked a big enough hammer. You are okay with them building that hammer?
Saber rattling I don't mind. Nuke rattling is another thing.
I don't think that George Bush is the problem. He is only part of the problem. Our policies are part of the problem and the ones steering the government are part of the problem.
Corporate profit is part of the problem. Haliburton, General Dynamics, KBR, Carlysle Group, tons more,make big money off of the war machine by keeping you worried that Iran is going to nuke us.
The mainstream media tells you what the government wants them to and right away 95% of the people believe it is true. Then those 95% run out to the dime store, buy a bunch of Chinese made American flags, tape them to their antennas, roll them up in their windows on cheap Chinese holders, leave them out at night unlighted in their front yards to deteriorate in the weather and they are the most patriotic sheeple in the country. They agree to unlimited spending, full cavity searches and x-ray stripping for domestic travel and relinquishing their rights in support of the exaggerated threat.
To get the sheeple to agree to that all they had to do was scare them out of their wits by assisting, encouraging and helping multiple false flag attacks on the country over the last century.
Here is just one instance- check it out. It is by a Veteran who was on the ship when we assisted in the Israeli attack and coverup to sway public opinion in favor of a war to attack Egypt.
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=4675.0
Is it nuke rattling or is it corporate profit nuke rattling?
Bush and his corporate money soiled cabal will continue to spew the lies even though our own agencies have said there is no threat. They know that most of the sheeple will believe them and follow in a patriotic frenzy.
Patriotism is not following a bunch of profiteering war mongers no matter what lie they tell you. That's team spirit.
Patriotism is loving your country enough to not let a group like the criminals in charge destroy the economy by unending wars that accomplish nothing other than transfer tax money to their own coffers and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. Yes it is real bullets, real bombs, and real blood. You just don't get to see it lest you should begin to disagree.
It will continue as the ones steering the government have their man in place to make it business as usual. McCain participated in the coverup of the failed false flag operation on the USS Liberty, jointly concocted by the Israelis and the US government, nor would he allow an investigation. This treason was classified information for 40 years.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran4dec04,0,2695315.story?coll=la-home-center
Please watch this MSNBC news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7cuN_3C59I
Absolute lies for corporate profits.
I thought that was McCains father who was the admiral???
Israel will be the ones who start the war with Iran not the US. But you'd have to be blind to not see that it has been planned out with US help. My guess is the next false flag attack will be against Israel and get blamed on Iran. Ofcourse the US will have no choice but to back it's favorite ally. Germany will be dragged in with a 50 year old guilt trip and the rest of nato will tag along for the ride.
well the only country ever to use the Nuke is the USA...So we are the country that is the threat... a threat to the rest of the world... Our nukes are not a defensive deterrant.... we will use them if anyone poses a serious challenge to our world dominance.
And is it funny for Israel to judge other countries and to be the moral compass for the middle east
Want to know who has annually topped the list for crimes against humanity pretty much every year since WWII...thats right fans it is Israel...Their occupation and settlement of disputed territory is a direct violation of international law that was passed after WWII because of the Nazi's
It always makes me laugh when a us secretary of state or a embassador says the rest of the middle east region must respect and recognize Israel...When Israel has never followed the rules of the UN... They have never respected any other country in that region... That their country exists mostly because they for years defied the UN and illegally smuggled over a million jews into what was palestine before 1948...And then took control of all the arable land, water and minerals from arab land owners in what is now Israel immediately after 1948
And newsflash folks.. Israel has a nuke... So it makes them a hippocrit to say that only benevolent powers should hold deadly weapons... They are almost as bad as hitler and his band of Nazi's and they have Nukes...No way on earth that Iran is as bad as Israel when it comes to human rights, international law, the UN, or morals
Beenvolence, provide your sources on Israel please. I want to see that list of crimes against humanity.
Have they sworn the destruction of their enemies? (I'll answer for you) No.
I find your handle very ironic.
You are right , Scott. I thought it was the current one but apparently it was his dad. I guess he's not that old. d*
I would look for the same trend of thought though.
Quote from: ScottA on June 07, 2008, 12:53:28 PM
I thought that was McCains father who was the admiral???
Exactly, Presidential candidate McCain is not
that old. ;D
Edit: Ooops I see Glenn got in there while I was reading multiple open topics.
Here's a short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related Tell me what you think...
Yup - you're late, Don -- we have already moved on to Israeli crimes against humanity. :)
Search "Israeli crimes against humanity" for much more. Note that this is mostly the Zionists doing this -- there are a lot of other anti-zionist Jews who feel this is wrong too.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060721&articleId=2787
http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis7.html
Oh c'mon. You chide me about believing mainstream media, and then post "data" from what is effectively "bob's blogs and muffler shop videos against the US"? rofl
Haven't you noticed a HUGE downturn in the amount of terrorist attacks around the globe while we are engaged in Afghanistan / Iraq? We couldn't go 6 months before that without a ship, embassy, trade center, railroad or something getting bombed.
I want to see the list that puts Israel at the top for crimes against humanity. Betcha if there is one it was edited by Palestine.
So what about the original question? That was "what should we do?".
-f-
BTW.. if you read that article about McCain, it was actually pointing out that McCain Jr. was endorsing a book that absolved his dad McCain Sr.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on June 07, 2008, 05:08:47 PM
Oh c'mon. You chide me about believing mainstream media, and then post "data" from what is effectively "bob's blogs and muffler shop videos against the US"? rofl
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Quote from: NM_Shooter on June 07, 2008, 05:08:47 PM
Haven't you noticed a HUGE downturn in the amount of terrorist attacks around the globe while we are engaged in Afghanistan / Iraq? We couldn't go 6 months before that without a ship, embassy, trade center, railroad or something getting bombed.
Hmmm. How about that? Coincidence? I think not.
Apparently you guys choose to ignore any mainstream media I post so it doesn't do much good to post it for you. You choose to unquestioningly follow the current official propaganda.
LA Times is mainstream I think.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran4dec04,0,2695315.story?coll=la-home-center
Please watch this MSNBC news. MSNBC is mainstream I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7cuN_3C59I
Crimes against humanity with the US being complicit in the false flag attack-
Israels attack on the Liberty fits there -- told by a veteran who was attacked.
I don't see how you can discount that unless your mind is closed to everything but what you want to hear.
http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/video-phil-tourneys-speech-uss-liberty-survivor-at-the-no-more-wars-for-israel-conference/
Shooter
I should have stated that they were at the top of the list for violations of human rights... according to international law... I went back and re-read articles I had read in years past...
A quick search brought up report after report by amnesty international and the Red Cross listing a plethora of perpetual abuses of human rights by Israel I will include links to various articles from various years for you to read
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/amnesty-international-accuses-israel-of-grave-human-rights-abuses/
Cluster bombs have long been considered inhumane and a weapon of mass destruction...Israel is the number one user of the cluster bomb...And their use of the device is well noted and listed Another of Israels follies.
This story from 2006 by amnesty international details acts by israel and then explains why they are violations of international law and clearly war crimes against humanity..Here is some of it:
The blockade by Israel on Lebanese airspace and territorial waters has caused shortages of fuel, medicines and other essential goods. Daily bombardments of residential areas, roads and other infrastructure continue to hamper the distribution of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.
Israel's claim that attacks by it forces are directed exclusively against legitimate targets is not borne out by the evidence gathered by Amnesty International's field research in Lebanon. The organisation's on-site investigations reveal that in the conduct of their military operations, Israeli forces have routinely violated both the principle of distinction between civilians and military targets and the principle of proportionality, in disregard of international humanitarian law. They have also unlawfully targeted civilian objects. Prima facie these violations amount to war crimes.
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020122006?open&of=ENG-ISR
Here is a document from 2004.... lists numerous violations.. executions, kidnapping, death penalty without trial, illegal deportation, tortue... this document lists countries in alphabetical order...but Isreal is guilty of every single violation listed...
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/4440633426888f5d85256ea000630554!OpenDocument
How about the illegal fences put up in the occupied territories by isreal to protect illegal isreali settlements: 2000-2003
More detailed information on the legality of Israel's actions in accordance to international law:
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR410122004?open&of=ENG-ISR
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR410122004?open&of=ENG-ISR
Here is a list of Israel and their violations in 2003:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/ddbcc0a854abdfb085256ea000685e96!OpenDocument
Remember that according to Jewish Law torture of a palestinian was legal up to a few years ago! :-\...a nice article from 2000
http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/mena/iot.html
I could link hundreds of articles explaining in detail annual perpetual violations of international law... war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel
If you want more articles to read I will gladly provide some more for you
QuoteHaven't you noticed a HUGE downturn in the amount of terrorist attacks around the globe while we are engaged in Afghanistan / Iraq? We couldn't go 6 months before that without a ship, embassy, trade center, railroad or something getting bombed.
Not really, in fact some of these appear to possibly be CIA sponsored operations per other research- Or did the CIA quit?
The war was planned before 9/11/2001 so lets start from there. MNBC - Mainstream enough I hope?
Quote
MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]
The oil pipeline was also planned before (much earlier) than that but a stable gov. was needed there.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq -- where we are - nearly daily.
Since then 7/7 Brit - false flag op.
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/london-77-bombings-false-flag-evidence-goes-mainstream
Spain - Bali -
Terror incident world wide {reported and recorded in Wikipedia}- list incomplete .
Note that I only counted the car bomb group listing once each year-- Many multiple incidents there. Note that car bombings barely existed before we went over there and greatly increased in about 2002 to unprecedented amounts.
Various - 2008 so far this year 59 but many were multiple. (at this rate this is an increase over last year)
about 110 in 2007
about 51 in 2006
about 39 in 2005
about 31 in 2004
about 33 in 2003
about 82 in 2002
about 24 in 2001
Interesting -- this one was later traced to our own military anthrax stock.
QuoteUnited States: Anthrax attacks on the offices the United States Congress and New York State Government offices, and on employees of television networks and tabloids.
about 13 in 2000
about 14 in 1999
about 11 in 1998
about 9 in 1997
about 16 in 1996
about 14 in 1995
about 14 in 1994
about 24 in 1993
about 12 in 1992
about 8 in 1991
Looks like a steady increase since we started the "war of terror", in fact almost 15 times more since 1991.
Nope -- not totally scientific but your argument of making the world safer won't cut it with me-- The media just doesn't report it because Washington says it doesn't look good. It doesn't agree with their agenda. The people who only watch the mainstream media, which is the majority, may think their war money is getting pilfered.
I don't have the answer to the plan for Iran -- we can't tell what will happen until it does.
Okay... last one for me and you can have the last word.
If you yourself actually fully read any of the sites that you provide links to, you will see that Palestine and Israel are in a tit for tat situation. Claiming that Israel is worse is a hypocritical view. Read the two top paragraphs for Lebanon and Israel in your link:
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020122006?open&of=ENG-ISR
You realize that their crap goes way back to the late 1800s with the dissolution of the Otoman Empire?
Personally, if I was in Israel, and someone from Palestine was lofting 100 rockets a day at me from civilian locations, I would endorse carpet bombing.
I never said Israel was innocent of humanitarian violations. I asked to see the list of nations that Benevolence said he had that indicated that Israel "annually topped" for human rights violations. Are you incapable of actually reading for comprehension? Don't call me close minded if you are not capable of understanding my initial challenge to the argument. And don't get pissed when I challenge BS postings that are fabricated, and apparently stem from anti-Semitic / anti Christian emotion.
Did I ever say I did not accept your "mainstream media" links? Nope. But I do challenge your conspiracy theory, US hating, Bush loathing liberal URLs.
You tell me that I can't take mainstream media as proof, then you provide me with both mainstream and other sites as your proof. How do you expect to be taken seriously being hypocritical? If you tell me that they are not valid, then don't send them out yourself.
Anthrax attacks via the mail, I have a hard time taking as a real threat. Don't forget name calling and spitwads if you are going to use that sort of resolution.
I'm dismayed at how a few of you turn every political argument into an opportunity to bash the US or the current administration.
My argument was that Iran having nukes will lend to further danger and instability. This was answered by:
(paraphrasing) "Well, the US has nukes, and Israel has nukes, so every body should have them. Even insane radicals." Huh?
and, "Israel bombed our ship eons ago, and it is now candidate McCain's fault for the cover up" Huh^2?
and "The conflict we are in is only because of oil, and Halliburton, Bush and Cheney are getting rich"
and "Bush was going to go to war with Afghanistan before 9/11" (sounds to me like he was right, huh?)
For my final statement on this out of control thread... I repeat... Iran can not aquire nukes.
Quote from: benevolance on June 08, 2008, 03:39:43 AM
Israel's ............... They have also unlawfully targeted civilian objects. Prima facie these violations amount to war crimes.
As Frank pointed out, don't cherry pick from an article to make a point. The very next paragraph, the one about what damages Israel has suffered through, ends with the same sentiment...
Civilians in Northern Israel have been subjected to continuous rocket attacks from Hizbullah who have fired an average of one hundred (100) rockets each day ..................Tens of thousands of residents have already fled from the north and most of those who are left are forced to spend much of their time in shelters.
This deliberate targeting of rockets on civilian areas constitutes a direct attack on the civilian population that is unlawful and amounts to a prima facie war crime. Cherry picking like that would seem to indicate that some folks just don't like Israel.
Please don't confuse my replies as getting mad -- I don't. I view it as recreational and educational - no matter what we learn.
I'll try to take this one thing at a time.
QuoteOkay... last one for me and you can have the last word.
If you yourself actually fully read any of the sites that you provide links to, you will see that Palestine and Israel are in a tit for tat situation. Claiming that Israel is worse is a hypocritical view. Read the two top paragraphs for Lebanon and Israel in your link:
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020122006?open&of=ENG-ISR
You realize that their crap goes way back to the late 1800s with the dissolution of the Otoman Empire?
Yup, they have been fighting for years but in 1947-48 the UN created the state of Israel in Palestinian land. The religious right has sworn and reaffirms unswerving support for Israel in the hopes that they have created an act of god and will be rewarded for it. Condoleeza recently reaffirmed all of this.
Personally, if I was in Israel, and someone from Palestine was lofting 100 rockets a day at me from civilian locations, I would endorse carpet bombing.
I'm not saying I support any of them but I do not believe it is our problem to support Israel with American lives and money.
I never said Israel was innocent of humanitarian violations. I asked to see the list of nations that Benevolence said he had that indicated that Israel "annually topped" for human rights violations. Are you incapable of actually reading for comprehension? Don't call me close minded if you are not capable of understanding my initial challenge to the argument. And don't get pissed when I challenge BS postings that are fabricated, and apparently stem from anti-Semitic / anti Christian emotion.
I am not against peace loving Jews as opposed to Zionist, and in fact spent a long time talking to a Jewish lady who was in Germany in WWII and was in great fear that the Homeland Security department would turn out the same as in Nazi Germany which it is patterned after. She said it sent chills up and down her spine every time she heard the word. I am not in agreement with what commercial Christian religion is doing in the name of God, but still consider myself Christian.
Note that I have many Jewish relatives buried in the Jewish cemetery's in Lithuania. Search it if you want.
Did I ever say I did not accept your "mainstream media" links? Nope. But I do challenge your conspiracy theory, US hating, Bush loathing liberal URLs.
Sorry, but you can not buy the official story if you will look at any of the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I am not encouraging the research on the official story because of conspiracy theories. These attacks are the start of this whole latest rounds of attacks on our freedom and the war of terror. I am encouraging everyone to check out the questions surrounding the attacks because I am a pilot and knew this could not happen without assistance from the inside. A plane cannot get this far off course without being intercepted. Even my Cessna 205 was intercepted when off course about a mile in Nevada once. These guys wrote the book on the need for a New Pearl Harbor and they helped create it to control the people and steer emotions to support their war plans and desires. That is what the evidence points to. The evidence does not agree with the official story.
I'm sorry you cannot see that the people in control of our government are the ones taking away the freedoms our founding fathers created. Carpet bombing the Christians in Iraq because they are in the same country with the Muslims in Iraq cannot be condoned by the true God. Do true Christians believe this is OK as long as we get a few Muslims?
You tell me that I can't take mainstream media as proof, then you provide me with both mainstream and other sites as your proof. How do you expect to be taken seriously being hypocritical? If you tell me that they are not valid, then don't send them out yourself.
I supplied mainstream media also in hopes you would believe them including Bush saying Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. I hoped that then you could see that most of the justification for this war of terror was fabricated so therefore likely the desire to obliterate Iraq and the evidence by our own agencies saying on MSNBC, that Iran had no nuke program would convince you of what you don't want to hear -- That Iran has NO nuke program other than for power.
Anthrax attacks via the mail, I have a hard time taking as a real threat. Don't forget name calling and spitwads if you are going to use that sort of resolution.
The anthrax attacks were plainly an attempt by the ones in control our government (Not our great country) to heighten the fear of the people and to get them to agree to release more of their freedoms freely without protest. Remember Bush running around on stage making the stupid little jokes about not finding the WMD's - I know they have to be here somewhere. Not funny.
continued - next post
continued from above
Quote
I'm dismayed at how a few of you turn every political argument into an opportunity to bash the US or the current administration.
I am dismayed that so many agree to give up all of their freedom to the ones destroying our economy and country for the sake of corporate profits and the loss of our jobs to other countries and illegal aliens for corporate profit, without at least protest. I can understand that it is hard to do something about it but if awareness is raised I think eventually things may eventually change.
My argument was that Iran having nukes will lend to further danger and instability. This was answered by:
(paraphrasing) "Well, the US has nukes, and Israel has nukes, so every body should have them. Even insane radicals." Huh?
My point was that it is only natural to try to protect your home. Put yourself in their place and see if you feel different.
and, "Israel bombed our ship eons ago, and it is now candidate McCain's fault for the cover up" Huh^2?
My point is that using false flag operations is standard operating procedures to get the people to agree with things they would not normally agree to. This is particularly applicable since it is once again, Israel is again pushing us to attack or jump in after they attack Iran. That seems to be a major motive force here.
and "The conflict we are in is only because of oil, and Halliburton, Bush and Cheney are getting rich"
No -- tons of war machine corporate interest here -- They are just examples. There are many forces directing events here.
and "Bush was going to go to war with Afghanistan before 9/11" (sounds to me like he was right, huh?)
No -- it is likely to destroy our country just a it did Russia after we and our CIA asset, Osama Bin Laden set them up. I don't see allowing the destruction of our country for some exaggerated threat --remember the WMD's?
For my final statement on this out of control thread... I repeat... Iran can not acquire nukes.
There are water pistols and guns. There are nuclear plants and nuclear bombs. We have already sent people and agencies in there to insure it is the former and not the latter. We have their reports. We cannot kill everyone in the world who may have or acquire nukes. We are not attacking the threats in countries who already have nukes -- most of them do not have oil.
I am not bashing our country. It is the best in the world. I am against what our current administration is doing to it in the name of profit and total control of it's population as well as the destruction of the freedoms our founding fathers intended for us to have.
Sorry - my cherry picking may result from trying to cover too much information and missing or forgetting important points.
Please continue to bring them to my attention. Thanks.
Here's a link to a video of a talk by Lindsay Williams awhile back before the big increase in oil prices - he's written several books - he was a chaplain up in Alaska when the pipeline was being built. He was told by the big oil men that he had saved them so much money in psychiatry & social worker's costs that they invited him to sit on the executive board. (he was not paid a salary by them) In this speech he is predicting an increase in gas prices to $4-5/gal. He explains how Kissinger made deals with Saudi Arabia & other oil producing countries to buy our national debt in trade for us buying their oil with promises to make them very wealthy nations. The countries that refused to deal were Iraq & Iran. Alaska is putting back into the ground billions & billions of gallons of natural gas on a regular basis to keep the prices up. Who is making the BIG bucks? Why did we go to war with Iraq? Saddam was too independent to bow the knee... Why do we need to go to war with Iran? Iran has threatened to unleash immense amounts of oil on the market & to sell it in Euros, not US $$$; this would totally de-stabalise the US & the International Monetary Fund (IMF) & World Bank cannot allow this to happen as they would lose $$$$. In the meantime, they are funding the national debt on the backs of US citizens by increased gas prices, bringing us down, as planned, to the level of a 3rd world nation.
This is a long video, but it would be well-spent time to listen - miss a couple shows on TV or something... ;D BTW, this person is putting his life on the line but feels this info needs to get out if we want to save our country...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en-CA
There's a lot of confictng info out there - who is spinning who? ???
Dan Rather on control of the mainstream media.
http://www.truthout.org/article/dan-rather-slams-corporate-news-conference
Sent by a friend -- This group says it is working on alternatives to war in Iran -- I haven't read it -- Let's have a look.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/work/middle_east/iran.php
particularly http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/IranConsequences.pdf Note PDF
additional links
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/iran-and-the-american-election
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/05/31/iran_cool_to_suspending_nuclear_agenda/?page=full
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14976/joe_bidens_speech_on_iran.html
Note that I haven't read these except to skim a couple and they were sent by a trusted friend of the forum who thought they would help to understand the Iran situation.
I fail to see how anyone could support an Iran war given the current fiasco in Iraq. Attacking Iran will only make things worse and us less safe.
Iranian 1: What shall we do with our first nuke?
Iranian 2: Lets blow up Los Angeles.
Iranian 1: If we do that we won't get to make nuke #2 since we'll be vaporized.
Iranian 2: Maybe we should hide it and hope for the best.
They won't use a nuke on us unless we leave them no choice. Bomb them and they'll have no choice.
I agree with you, Scott. If we run around the world forcing people to defend themselves, that is what they will do, just as we would if we were attacked.
If we had to pay cash for this war we would be bankrupt. Things are getting paid for with credit and billed to our account. We can't afford the one we are fighting now and the payments are going to the war machine manufacturers on our kids credit and blood, not to mention the hundreds of thousand of innocents killed in Iraq. Don't forget -- somewhere in the past this was named Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not operation Iraqi hamburger.
We would be much better off building our military and training them to protect us in case of a threat than squandering them all over the world to the breaking point for corporate profit and whatever else is driving this thing.
Dick Cheney had it right when he spoke about Iraq after Gulf War I - amazing that he changed his tune so completely with Gulf War II...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=csKkdKlLUTc&feature=related
This article came out yesterday and paints a picture of why it is not politically or economically feasible for a US invasion of Iran right now. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1813706,00.html
I dont know anything about this really, although I did comment in the thread above that I thought it was not possible as well. I am curious if anyone sees any obvious holes in the line of thinking in the article.
We can't afford a war in Iran but air strikes are possible. Irans missle batteries would likely be among the first waves of attacks as well as their forward troop positions near Iraq. As for the price of oil going to $300 a barrel who knows...would depend on how the first round of attacks go. After the performance in Iraq I don't have much faith in their ability to shut down Iran with air strikes. The biggest problem Bush has other than the price of fuel is the armed forces themselves. Things are so streached already it would take a year or more after a draft was reinstated just get the forces in place to attack them. We are atleast 100,000 troops short of a land war in Iran. I've always feared that if we do attack Iran Bush will have no choice but to use tactical nukes to end it fast.
The usa cannot invade another country and use Nukes... If they are the aggressor and they use WMD specifically nukes they lose credability with the rest of the world...We would have no right to speak out against any other country from acquiring or using Nukes in the future.
Having nukes as a deterrant is bad enough... but to use them when attacking a country that poses no direct threat to the USA.... Well that opens up another can of worms...
If you think anti US sentiment is bad now...Wait until the USA bombs another country with nukes that did not attack soil in the USA...Contrary to what people think...If the EU boycotted the USA and placed trade sanctions against the USA they could collectively cause what is left of our economy to collapse and send this country into a out of control spiral
Request -- if you do nothing else, will you please continue reading this and my next posting in their entirety without stopping. I would like to get your thoughts and advice on this. Then feel free to tear into me if you want. :)
Cowardly air strikes on Iran would mean War with Iran and we would deserve the total destruction of our economy if we are stupid enough to do it. No way we would get them all, and our interests over there are already targeted.
As soon as the first bomb is dropped...as soon as the first blood starts running out of the massacred women and babies, they will launch their missiles. Before the small children's arms and legs are plastered onto the wall by the blast, the war with Iran will be on. Before the flesh is charred down to their tiny bones their military leaders will begin pushing the buttons. Before the brains run out of the little broken skulls Israel will have bombs headed their way and be crying for us to save them. Another feather in the cap of the Bush cabal. Wake up.
They have done nothing to assault us except to return the rhetoric coming from the idiot occupying the position of president.
Iraq was defenseless -- Iran is not....maybe the increased deaths of our servicemen will be enough to end our reign of terror. Maybe the fall of the stock market will raise the awareness of the public. Maybe $10 a gallon gas will cause the removal of the Bush crime family. It's obvious that not many over here give a rats S about the innocent people over there dying, even if they are of the same religion and do not want to be involved in the war.
I would love to gather the world leaders together, put them in a big arena with all the weapons they wanted and let them fight to the death - then exterminate the survivors.
The people of any country are for the most part good people just like you or I. It is the elite of the country who strive for wealth and power at the expense of the working class -- the breeders of cannon fodder.
What ever happened to just protecting our country without assaulting the world? hmm
We could have an even stronger military than we have now by not destroying it for wars for profit of the investor in oil and the military complex.
I'm curious. Not against anyone specifically -- just a general question. If you agree to attacking Iran...agree to let Bush and Cheney do whatever they want, if you think an airstrike is OK (it is after all a nice sanitary sounding word -- you don't have to look at the dismembered mutilated bodies), and someone of the same religion as you in Iran is murdered by a bomb, is that OK?
You are both of the same religion...you obviously both have the same true God...you both obviously have only one God. There are "Christains" over there just like here- maybe a minority but they are there. Does being an accessory to murder by airstrike relieve you of the blood guilt of killing your brother over there? Does your God forgive you because they said they wanted to build a nuke at one time.
Does the fact that some don't know for sure leave enough doubt that the murder of innocents is OK? Does your god just go ahead and forgive you anyway?
The God I picture for me wouldn't. Maybe my true God would be considered a sissy by you for not allowing a clean surgical airstrike to murder women and children.
My God wouldn't mind being called a sissy. He's been called names before. I guess he isn't going to answer directly. He'll just judge when he's ready. Wake up.
Is agreeing with wanton murder by bomb what he talked about when he said wide is the path to everlasting destruction? Or...possibly there is no God and he's not a threat? What do you think? hmm
Seems he's not gonna tell us, eh?
Sorry to bring religion into this but it is pretty well being pushed by religious ideologies. I am of no commercial or organized religion any more. I can't find one I agree with, so just wondering how you feel about these thoughts. The God I picture won't go along with the crap modern religion is condoning.
If I was to not talk about it, would the ideas I am asking about go away? Would it not need to be considered because I refused to think about it? Would it not be there if I don't look at pictures of dead babies?
Glen I think you exceeded the limit on question marks in that last post. More people have been murdered in the name of God than any other reason. All I can offer in the way of an answer is the suposed word of God himself/herself???
Thou shalt not kill.
fact of the matter is that war means big bucks for the elite and wealthy...and it is good for big business... Steel, coal, aerospace industries make a decade worth of profits in a year of war...
Since WWII America has gone to war for money and power instead of morals, justice or democracy. Vietnam was a lie, Iraq was a lie, Iran would be another lie
Our soldiers would die for nothing other than increased profits for lockheed martin and Exxon
I am getting sick of this....I just wish that America as a whole would stand up and say no to our government when a few crooked leaders at the top send us to war for increased profits and more money
Sorry Scott -- probably bad composition on my part. Thanks for the reply. I all of the sudden couldn't stop writing. ::) The voices in my head told me to type. [crz]
If we actually took action they would invoke martial law. The illegal presidential signing orders are already in place, but you are right, Peter.
We are heroes. We have freed Iraq. Possibly we can do the same for Iran.
Report from my friend, Dahr Jamail.
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m44850&hd=&size=1&l=e
Capt. Ward Boston, USN (Ret) (RIP --Ward Boston passed away yesterday. -info courtesy WRH -no mention in MSM)
Thoughts on Iran and The USS Liberty
QuoteAs far as the future goes, Capt. Boston is not hopeful. 'If either they (the Israelis) or the US launches a war against Iran, it will be the beginning of the end' he said. 'Armageddon...You'll have Muslims pouring into the area from all over the world and no army will be able to stop them. They will tear Israel and the Americans to pieces.'
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/insider-tells-the-truth-about-the-cover-up-of-the-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/
Speech at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Quote"There is only one country that is putting pressure on the US to attack Iran, and that is Israel," Mearsheimer said. "AIPAC is pushing hard for an attack on Iran, and no other lobby in America is," he said, referring to the pro-Israeli lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
That the two men were invited to speak at all was the subject of some controversy, with several Israeli professors questioning whether the invitation was appropriate. The university did not widely advertise the lecture, which was held in a moderate-sized lecture hall unable to contain the number of students and faculty who had arrived. But most seemed to agree that, especially at the school that is viewed as Israel's leading university, diverse views should be aired.
"There is more criticism being heard here in Israel of the lobby," says Moshe Fox, a doctoral student, referring to AIPAC, "and of the US-Israel relationship in general than there is in the US."
Indeed, in recent weeks, Israeli politicians and pundits have been speaking more critically about the state of relations between the United States and the Jewish state.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0614/p07s01-wome.html
Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be 'Delighted'»
This morning on Fox News, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton continued his drumbeat for war against Iran. Adopting Bill Kristol's argument, Bolton suggested that an attack on Iran depends on who Americans elect as the next President:
I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don't think they will do anything before our election because they don't want to affect it. And they'd have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush's term in office or wait for his successor.
Bolton gamed out the fallout from an attack on Iran. He claimed that Iran's options to retaliate after being attacked are actually "less broad than people think." He suggested that Iran would not want to escalate a conflict because 1) it still needs to export oil, 2) it would worry about "an even greater response" from Israel, 3) and it would worry about the U.S.'s response.
Bolton then concluded that Arab states would be excited if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran:
I don't think you'd hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.
Watch it: vidoe of Bolton's news cast at link
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/bolton-arabs-delighted/
Here's one who won't be going to Iran.
Cannon Fodder- http://www.newsweek.com/id/142640 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142640)
I guess the plan for Iran is for oil just as they are admitting for the plan for Iraq - It was oil all along.
http://www.truthout.org/article/it-was-oil-all-along
Iran is a complex country and one of the few established democracies in the region. They are actually helping more than hurting the US in Iraq and have done much to stabilize some of the religious zealots.
If Chaney gets his neo-con way on this and pushes Bush to unilateral action it will be an even bigger debacle than Iraq. I don't really think he is that short sighted or malevolent. But, I could be wrong.
Getting nukes, for the most part, makes a country more rational, careful and responsible with their use of this weapon. It has a bit of a calming effect on their desperation. I understand the fear of proliferation, but it won't be the end of the world if Israel and Iran face off like India and Pakistan. Just a new balance of power.
NPR's Terry Gross has a podcast interview with Seymour Hersh and his New Yorker article on a 400 $million "Presidential Finding" on Iran. This link will bring up a list...
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=13
I think they will bite off way more than they can chew if they try it.
I don't know, John. I see Cheney as short sighted, evil, greedy, power hungry and somebody I don't want to go hunting and drinking with.
Yes, I think I'd like to pass on that hunting trip. :o