i guess it makes sense that neocons would disagree with paul craig roberts, he's not socialist enough apparently...
Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Printable View
i guess it makes sense that neocons would disagree with paul craig roberts, he's not socialist enough apparently...
Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's not that at all Pisshead.......he just seems like another "journalist" that has to make his way promoting fear rather than reporting actual news. You know, like good ol' Alex Jones.......DANGER!! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
Have a good one!:s4:
This ain't gonna happen. There's no TIME for Cheney and/or Bush to put together a war with Iran, even if they wanted to. Even in "Evil America" the president (or Vice President!) can't just order an invasion or bombing campaign of the scale you are talking about without making a case for it. Whether you agree with the reasons for the Iraq War or not, the adminstration did at least make a case for it and got the buy-in of the Senate. There were resolutions in the UN that proivded a pretext as well. Now it may have turned out that all those reasons were LIES, but at least there was an effort at selling a patina of legitimacy.
None of that groundwork has been done for Iran, and there isn't time to do it now. The election is in 7 months. I wouldn't put anything past Bush or Cheney, but I doubt even they would get us into a war with Iran right before leaving office. Unless it is part of the larger conspiracy to precipitate a worldwide crisis, suspend the Constitution, and install Cheney as President for Life of our new fascist nation... Hmmmm... Maybe there is something to this after all....
IF, notice i said, IF there was to be war they CAN suspend elections and keep the current gov't in power.
IF that were to happen, there'd be a war all right --- Civil War.Quote:
Originally Posted by yokinazu
Note: I do not believe in this scenario at all, but if the government were to launch another ill-advised, unpopular war, without any public support or pretext, and then suspend elections because of the crisis, there would be a period of bloody chaos resulting in either a full dictatorship, or a bunch of fascists swinging from ropes.
Another reason I do not believe in this scenario is that our military is stretched so thin already, I don't think we could sustain an effectiuve attack on Iran. Although, knowing this administration, they would probably estimate it to take only 10,000 special forces commandos, be over in 30 days, and be paid for with Iranian oil revenues. If Rummy were still around, it would be 100 troops, 5 days, and we'd be greeted by the Iranians with bouquets of flowers, handjobs for everyone, and free gas for life! How hard could it be? We've got 'em surrounded already, and we've got plenty of practice in Afghanistan and Iraq! Fuck, yeah! Wait a minute ... I was against this thing, right?
I don't think a war with Iran is in our imminent future, unless they slip up and really provoke an attack, but it's a country that you don't want to forget is there. As much hateful rhetoric that has come out of the top political figures there, it'd be nuts NOT to keep an eye on them and know what they're doing. Maybe sanctions and stern negotiations will make them straighten up and ditch their fanatical theocratic ways... but for some reason, I have my doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
looks we're well on our way to selling a war with iran... quite a few links to go through for those who are interested...
Quarter Of Americans Now Think Iran is The Biggest Enemy
Consistent neocon propaganda campaign paying off
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
[align=left] A quarter of Americans believe that Iran now poses the biggest threat to the United States, confirming that a sustained neocon propaganda campaign to demonize Iran and its leaders for their own strategic benefit is having a significant impact.
According to a new poll by Gallup, Iran is top of the enemy list, with 25 percent, followed by Iraq at 22 percent, then China with 14 percent, and North Korea with 9 percent.
Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to see Iran as the top U.S. enemy, while Democrats are likelier to name Iraq. Older people and those who say they closely follow world news are less likely to cite Iraq than the younger and less informed, reported the AP.
It was September last year when the New Yorker magazine reported that Barnett Rubin, a highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, asserted that Dick Cheney ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell conflict with Iran.
The fruits of that propaganda campaign are now clear to see.
The outcome of the poll was no doubt spurred by assertions from figures within the Bush administration, the military and the intelligence community who have continued to suggest that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
Only yesterday CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said that he believes Iran is still pursuing a nuclear bomb, even though the U.S. intelligence community, including his own agency, reached a consensus judgment last year that the Islamic Republic had halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq.
In spite of the report and the Iranians' continued denial of such a weapons program, the rhetoric from the neocons in the White House has continued.
"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," President Bush said in a Dec. 4 news conference, shortly after the release of the national intelligence estimate. [/align]
In an interview with ABC News last week, Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that Iran was "heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels." despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever.
This consistent line from an administration led by those who are reportedly desperate to bomb Iran, along with the occasional misquote about wiping Israel off the map and a few manufactured provocations and skirmishes, has resulted in a sizeable chunk of the American population believing that we'd better deal with those darn Iranians quick smart.
[align=left]Of course, a significant portion of Americans will seemingly believe anything.
It is telling that behind Iran, Iraq was named the next greatest enemy despite the fact that there was never any intelligence to confirm it had weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003 and despite the fact that the current Iraqi government is backed by the U.S.
The poll may have been more accurate had it been titled "Which country is the biggest threat to U.S. military industrial complex dominance over the entire region of the middle east?".
Or Perhaps, "which country most threatens the Western elite's stranglehold and manipulation of the production of oil and natural gas?" [/align]
[align=left]Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
Of course. There are Americans who honesty believe that Bush was responsible for 9/11, or played a major role in covering the tracks of those who were. Americans who believe that the Patriot Act was devised solely to spy on paranoid Democrats. Democrats who believe that we should pull every U.S. soldier out of whatever foreign country they're in, and have them here to watch out solely for their own (primarily those who are filthy rich and powerful). You're right, some Americans will believe anything they hear.
Iran should be watched, and you'd be a fool to believe that they only want to revamp their nuclear programs to provide energy. Until they can demonstrate that they aren't in favor of the annihilation of an entire religion, it would be prudent to at least keep close tabs on them and what they're doing with all that 'nuclear energy' they're wanting to make.
[/align]
I'm not a democrat.
I'm a populist, or a constitutionalist or a constitutional conservative.
There's too much wrong at home for me to think I need to bomb some other country for what they're doing. I'm not threatened by them despite your desperate need for me to fear them as much as you.