• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

‘Peaceful Purposes’

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
20,501
I picked this up over at LGF.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2319

Bush: B-2 Flights Over Tehran for ‘Peaceful Purposes’
by Scott Ott

(2006-08-26) — Just hours after Iran opened a new plant capable of making plutonium “for peaceful purposes”, U.S. President George Bush assured his Iranian counterpart that any B-2 bombers that appear over Tehran in the near future would also serve peaceful purposes.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cut the ribbon on the new heavy-water nuclear plant Saturday as part of a month-long Iranian tribute to the effectiveness of the United Nations.

Mr. Bush hailed Iran’s “transparent diplomacy” and said, “I called President Ahmadinejad today to congratulate him, and I told him that if he happens to notice one of them Stealth bombers going over his town at about 600 miles per hour, he can be assured that the pilot has only the best intentions in his heart for world peace.”

“There’s nothing like the B-2 when it comes to giving peace a chance,” Mr. Bush added.

Looking through this site it seems they have something of a sharp edge to their humor. :)
 
Isn't this just like Deja Vu all over again?

Doesn't it sound just a bit familiar?

A Muslim country makes the claim, we buy the bait, they refuse the UN weapons inspectors, we hype up the danger, we start considering military options BEFORE anything else, they raise the stakes, we commit troops on the notion that people in a Muslim country are so tired of their oppresive regime that they'll join us and rise up in rebellion against their dictators and join us in the fight for freedom . . .

It's be a "slam dunk," because "we'll be greeted as liberators."

I'm sure the closer November elections become the more dangerous Iran will become. It amazes me that apparently intelligent Americans can laugh in retrospect at the Iraqi WMD, but just mention Iran and Nuclear Weapons and here we go again.

A wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me uhhhhh, fool me, uhhhhhh, fool me twice, uhhhhhh, you can't fool me again."
 
Okay, I'll be the first to go on record here to say that I didn't believe in Iraqi WMD and opposed the Iraqi invasion from the get-go. However, I believe Iran requires intervention.

But your notion of greeted as liberators in Iran?!? What the? Do you seriously think a ground invasion is being considered by anyone? Iranian nuclear assests can be removed without toppling the government.

Aaron
 
Okay, I'll be the first to go on record here to say that I didn't believe in Iraqi WMD and opposed the Iraqi invasion from the get-go. However, I believe Iran requires intervention.

But your notion of greeted as liberators in Iran?!? What the? Do you seriously think a ground invasion is being considered by anyone? Iranian nuclear assests can be removed without toppling the government.

Aaron

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
_____________

"The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages. Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.

(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714
_____________

Beating the Drums of War. US Troop Build-up: Army & Marines authorize "Involuntary Conscription"

The Timing of U.S. Troop Build-up: Iran and the Broader Middle East

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

August 23, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

U.S. Army & Marines are recalling thousands of Inactive Servicemen

If one places a frog in a kettle of boiling water, the frog will immediately jump and try to escape, but if you place the frog in a kettle of cold water then heat the kettle gradually, the frog will obliviously, without any notice, remain in the kettle as the temperature of the water rises and the frog eventually boils to death. The significance of this is that gradual change can be and is believed to be unperceivable. This is strategy and concept can likewise be used on societies and groups in a variety of manners.

It is now being specified and openly stated that the U.S. Marines have started recalling or legally summoning thousands of ‘inactive servicemen’ to serve in Iraq and the Middle East, where the number of U.S. troops and contracted security personal are dropping towards hap-hazardous levels that seem to be worrying American commanders in Iraq and the Pentagon’s military planners, especially in light of the recent escalation and intensifying tension(s) and resistance to Anglo-American occupation in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The U.S. Army too, undermined by shortfalls in manpower, has ordered over a reported 14,000 ‘inactive servicemen’ back to fight in what is cited as the ‘War on Terror,’ as opposed to the ‘fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.’ Already thousands of servicemen have disserted, even applying for refugee status in Canada, and thousands more are AWAL (absent without authorized leave).

The compulsory recall to military service has come about and materialized in an almost complementary and balancing fashion with the timing of several important international events. The compulsory recall of ‘inactive servicemen’ in the United States might even go unnoticed in North America and most of the world until analysts, historians and later generations look back at the present events, years from now and place them into focus within a larger matrix of events.
_____________

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy woo, sounds like something is going on to me . . . ;) Too bad soldiers who thought their sacrifice and service was already paid in full are going to be thrown back into the frying pan.

(edited to add) Good luck, csense, Darth Rotor, garrett and others I may have forgotten. Just remember, don't bounce when you walk and take care what kind of light is behind you. ;)
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll be the first to go on record here to say that I didn't believe in Iraqi WMD and opposed the Iraqi invasion from the get-go. However, I believe Iran requires intervention.

But your notion of greeted as liberators in Iran?!? What the? Do you seriously think a ground invasion is being considered by anyone? Iranian nuclear assests can be removed without toppling the government.

Aaron
Iran's nuclear facilities are too deeply buried to be removed by air power alone. It would require ground troops. This doesn't mean an occupation after the troops actions however. It could be go in, destroy the facilities, then leave.
 
Mephisto. You forgot to quote Scott Ritter:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm

But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran.

Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.

Over a year later, Ritter must be getting a bit nervous about his prediction.
 
Iran's nuclear facilities are too deeply buried to be removed by air power alone. It would require ground troops. This doesn't mean an occupation after the troops actions however. It could be go in, destroy the facilities, then leave.

I'm fairly certain that I didn't say otherwise.

Aaron

ETA: how embarrasing... I did. My appologies. You are correct. Yes, ground troops may be required. But as we don't plan on keeping the ground or toppling the government, we still don't need to be greeted as liberators.
 
“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

It looks like we're behind schedule.

Don't you think maybe you should look a little more broadly than just the word of a single "former high-level intelligence official" in forming your view of the world?
 
In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

...

Already thousands of servicemen have disserted (sic), even applying for refugee status in Canada

Well, so much for the accuracy (and spelling) of "globalresearch.ca".

Of course, the "New Yorker" source Mephisto quotes is slightly more "accurate", but only because it makes such a vague claim as to be meaningless: an unspecified "intelligence officer" saying that the Bush administration is looking at some sort of "campaign" in Iran--sometime, somewhere.
 
Last edited:
...



Well, so much for the accuracy (and spelling) of "globalresearch.ca".

Of course, the "New Yorker" source Mephisto quotes is slightly more "accurate", but only because it makes such a vague claim as to be meaningless: an unspecified "intelligence officer" saying that the Bush administration is looking at some sort of "campaign" in Iran--sometime, somewhere.
I was always under the impression that the "unspecified intelligence officer" that Hersh cites was Scott Ritter, which is why I linked Ritter's story. Neither have ever come out and admitted it, but there are too many coincidences between Ritter's and Hersh's claims to not be suspicious. If Ritter was his source, well, that tells you how reliable Hersh has become in his waning years. Sometimes he sounds no different that a CT.
 
I find it hard to believe that anybody still takes Hersch seriously, after his numerous gaffes and totally discredited books. And that they post Hersch's conspiracy-theory speculations under "fact" tells you quite a bit about the New Yorker.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom