Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I think if Israel slings anything at Iran....

Posted By: watcher on 2009-06-17
In Reply to: Another twist/question...(sm) - Just the big bad

it would not just be rockets, and if someone had said I had no right to exist, I might consider slinging some rockets at them myself. I'm just sayin.

And as to Obama being able to hold them back...if he can't be bothered to shake his finger at Iran for crushing protests on worldwide TV, what on earth would make you think he could or would if he could hold Israel back? I have seen nothing to indicate that Barack Obama cares a hoot in heck what happens to Israel. If you look at his connections and who he has loaded his administration with...their agenda is certainly not pro Israel and to be frank I believe they consider Israel expendable, and if the palestinians get taken out as collateral damage...well...you should watch that posted video, and then you should look at a list of the Bilderberg group. Funny how the left always wanted to talk about it because there were many of right in the group...well, there are certainly a lot more of the left in it, and a ton of those are in the present administration. But now that they are in power, amazing how the Bilderberg group is no longer the big bad...sorry for borrowing your moniker there. lol.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Iran warns US. Israel Livini Blasts O's Iran plan

Iran warns US.


http://www.startribune.com/world/33937339.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU


Israel concerned about ties with new US administration.


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=060dd72c-c876-4e0d-b39f-c835c26b256c


And we have to worry about our own economy.  Afraid to find out what is next.


oops: I did mean Israel & Iran.
Afghanistan & Pakistan are no picnic, either.
I assumed you meant Israel and Iran.
Iran's potential for nuclear weapons? A war between them is not likely, unless Israel initiates a Bush-style "premptive strike." Given their history of aggressive militarism, this is not entirely inconceivable. Ask yourself a few questions. When was the last time in modern history that Iran declared war or invaded another country, keeping in mind that Iraq invade Iran, not the other way around? Now, when was the last time Israel declared war and/or invaded another country, i.e., Syria, Egypt, Lebanon multiple times?

Despite Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, thanks to the US taxpayers, he can never hope to catch up with the nuclear arsenals now housed in Israel....and he knows that. Consider the case of Korea. Bush bullied North Korea around relentlessly UNTIL they succeeded in developing nukes. After that, W sure did start singing a different tune, didn't he? Stunning reversal in attitude.

As long as US nuclear policy is "do as I say, not as I do" and continues to bankroll nuclear stockpile arsenals in their Middle East military staging base, the region will remain unstable....just the way the US likes it, at least so far. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran just MIGHT bring about the same sort of results it did in Korea and serve as a moderating force. This is where diplomacy comes into play. Open discussions held in good faith (so far not possible in view of sanctions and all those Israeli NUKES) that encourage nuclear energy and discourage nuclear weaponry in Iran along with incentives (such as easing sanctions, for starters) would go a long way in at least bringing some HOPE for stability in the region. War there is not a foregone conclusion...unless we elect another saber-rattler.
Oh, I think Iran calling for the obliteration of Israel...
from the map, to me, gives them a right to be be concerned, doncha think? Oh my all means, given Iran a nuke and see how that stabilizes everything. Even Obama is not goofy enough to say that...HE said a nuke in the hands of Iran was unacceptable. Now whether that means Ahmadinejad would not be welcome for tea...not altogether sure.
Israel air force is ready to attack Iran

capable of making nuclear bomb.  I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran.  My question is if the US is going to help?  I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel.  I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states. 


The first 2 links are about Israel ready to attack Iran.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75885&sectionid=351020104


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455005,00.html


This is about Iran nuclear capibility as of today from Fox news. 


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html


And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Iran....
But, governments do speak for their people in diplomatic circles and at the United Nations, regional conferences with other nations where they live, etc.

It is not possible for other countries to differentiate between the people of Iran and the government leaders. They deal with the leaders.

You know, we were fed a line in this country as far as back the first George Bush administration back in 1988-1992 that the people of Iraq did not support Hussein and that he would be overthrown by internal forces. That did not happen. We went in there 3 years ago to free the Iraqi people and it is now a huge mess that has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Now Iran is making more noise. They hated the Shah because of his close ties to the West, so they put in a lunatic Islamic cleric and turned the country into a religious state. Islam teaches brotherhood and tolerance, so why are the leaders of this religious state so full of hate and spite?

Frankly, I think we should completely withdraw from the Middle East, including Israel. We should deport all Middle Easterners from this this country and from our American territories. We should quit buying your oil and anything else you produce. Leave us alone and we'll return the favor.

I think it is apparent that democracy is not possible in Arab Islamic countries. It works in other Muslim countries, like Turkey and some other places, but obviously the Middle East is not evolved enough to be able to tolerate other people's viewpoints and value systems. Until that happens, there can be no democracy.
Iran

 • AP photographer: Gunmen fire on Iran protesters, killing one


 


I hope the link works!  If not,  sorry!


Iran

Looks like they're breaking out the tear gas and water cannons, along with the bullets.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/20/iran.election/index.html


Iran

I





"




















Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained



Share | Email | Print | A A A






"




















Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained



Share | Email | Print | A A A






"




















Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained



Share | Email | Print | A A A

Ten killed in Iranian protests, Rafsanjani  relatives detained







"




















Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained



Share | Email | Print | A A A


"  Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "







"




















Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained



Share | Email | Print | A A A


 


" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” he said in an e-mailed statement. "


Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests.  Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!


 


Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying.  Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically.  ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII. 
FYI, even though born in Iran, she is....sm
a natural-born American citizen.
why to worry about Iran
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89476
Acorn is over in Iran too?

LMAO.


situation in Iran

Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday 



update on Iran














Barack Obama's comments have grown more pointed as the clashes intensified, and his latest remarks took direct aim at Iranian leaders.
Obama tells Iran's leaders to stop unjust actions.







'


update on Iran














Barack Obama's comments have grown more pointed as the clashes intensified, and his latest remarks took direct aim at Iranian leaders.
Obama tells Iran's leaders to stop unjust actions.







'


Iran already fading from the

I was listening to a variety of news shows and visiting a number of news sites this morning for my "daily dose" when it struck me that the coverage about Iran is already diminishing - even on sites like Fox News. 


Sometimes I think that we Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly...and I also think that people like the Ayatollah rely on the fact that after a brief period of outrage, Americans will forget that there may be thousands of Iranians either in hospitals or sitting in cells waiting to hear exactly how they will be executed.


More trouble in Iran

Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."


What about Dumbya nuking Iran

with his *bunker busters*?


Now THAT'S an example of why certain countries (and/or their leaders) shouldn't be let loose with nuclear weapons!


This is a shocking and frightening story, and I don't recall reading anything about Congress giving Bush this power.


 


Bush's next war: NUKE IRAN!

Well, here it is, folks.  The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush). 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary


US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran





Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET



The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.


The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.


That's the name they're using, the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.


A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.


The former intelligence officials depicts planning as enormous, hectic and operational, Hersh writes.


One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government, The New Yorker pointed out.


In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.


One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.


But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.


There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries, the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.


The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke a chain reaction of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.


If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle, the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.












Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback















Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.

And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.

And Let's face it...if Iran nuked Israel, WW III would be on.
And didn't we help Iran out when they were being invaded?(nm)

.


These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:

1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.

A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.

RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.

I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.

setting the stage for a war with iran
Maybe this will come to nothing, but the NYT reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html?hp) that ''the amount of uranium that Tehran had now amassed — more than a ton — was sufficient, with added purification, to make an atom bomb.''

So here we go again, people nudging us towards war, with the complicity of the Times. We'll pretend that a nuclear weapon is something you can cook up in your kitchen, once you have the requisite number of atoms. We'll pretend that this is The Greatest Threat We Have Ever Known. Even bigger than Saddam, who ended up not having all the WMD the NYT said he did. We've already begun playing around with 2007's National Intelligence Estimate (see LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story) to make Iran seem more dangerous.

We really just can't leave *anyone* alone, can we?
Iran's meddling accusations....sm
I disagree TOTALLY with your suggestion how O should have reacted to the ongoing protests, I quote from your psot:


'Yes, it would have been better if he had just said ANYthing just a wee bit strong...hey Mahmoud...couldn't you just stop beating the crap out of protestors in front of the TV cameras? Bad form old boy. Makes you look bad.'

Bad tactic and bad advice.

Sounds like 'cowboy-jargon' to me.

BTW, read the accusations of the Iranian government, although Obama stayed passive and restraint:


'The Iranian government has directly accused the United States of meddling in the deepening crisis. A statement by state-run Press TV blamed Washington for "intolerable" interference.
The report, on Press TV, cited no evidence.'
So what? All legal votes, we are not Iran....nm
nm
Israel
There are many jews who do not like Sharon, many.  I could post what they say about him but I wont.  However, posting about great leaders, I grew up loving absolutely loving Golda Meir..The situation in Israel is not ours to decide or get heated about..the situation we need to get heated about is America.  To try to tie jews and christians together happily cannot happen.  For many many years christians did not even acknowledge jews or their beliefs, now all of a sudden lets get together as we believe as one, however, we do not believe as one, not at all.  I have watched this over a few years, the christians are trying to hook onto jews as they think well, we both believe in the Bible so we believe the same.  We do not believe the same.  First of all, we do not believe in the new testament, we do not believe in hell, many of us do not even believe in a heaven and we do not believe in jesus as a savior.  He was a jewish man who taught peace and love and tolerance but nothing more.  Our savior has not come yet.  I think you truly pray and feel for Israel, however, maybe you can take a few courses of Judaism at a local synagogue and understand us more.  I know my local synagogue has courses for non jews to learn more about us.
Oil from Israel
Has anyone researched that? In the coming future, Russia will attack Israel. Those who have researched prophecies of the future of the world believe a gusher of this oil wealth is soon coming from Israel, and Russia (amazingly not called Soviet Union in these prophecies of 1100+ years ago) will form an Islamic alliance (they really don't want to) and will come down from the north and attack unwalled villages, supposedly for this sudden great wealth of oil. However, Israel has built walls all over the place. So, this attack will probably happen after the one world leader soon to appear on the world scene offers a convincing (but false) peace and Israel tears the walls down. I have been to Russia, and it is so different from what was promised to the Russian people back when my parents were very young. Then, it was a revolution similar to what Castro was supposed to have done, and now what Chavez is supposedly doing. I saw the apartments, hospitals, schools, etc., in Russia. Yes, Kruschev said there were no homeless people. I only saw people who had to live in apartments where the government dictated that they live and no freedom to express their opinion. Their cost to live in these apartments - free. Our cost to have the freedom in America to say what we want to - priceless. Anyone remember that guy that wrote, The Late Great Planet Earth, back in the 1970's. He now has a program called International Intelligence Briefing. Check your local/cable listings. If you know of any others like him who have researched this other side of the (global) story, please let me know. Thanks.
Israel was willing........... sm
to give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005 and allow them to govern it on their own, but that wasn't good enough for the Palestinians.

China has given us untold amounts of money. Does that mean that China has a say in how our country should be run?

I stand on my previous statements that any country that does not support Israel (and I don't mean just monetarily)is barking up the wrong olive tree.
do you really think it is just to let Israel
take the whole of Palestine? Does not matter what the Bible says!
US attack on Iran may prompt terror













  MSNBC.com

U.S. attack on Iran may prompt terror
Experts say strikes on nuclear facilities could spark worldwide retaliation


By Dana Priest


Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET April 2, 2006



As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.


Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.


U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter is consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. It's a huge issue, another said.


Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.


Bigger threat than al-Qaeda?
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation, said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.



The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.


Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll, although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.


Rise in tension raises stakes
Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.


U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.


Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory would be regarded as an act of war by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.


History of reprisals
Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.


Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.


Iran's intelligence services are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades, said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished.


Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls plots and acts of meddling by the United States.


Given the uptick in interest in Iran on the part of the United States, it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely, said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options.



Agencies mum on true threat
The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.


We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner, a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.


The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.


Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.


As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this.


Facilities make difficult targets
Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.


A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.


Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.


Iran certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur, said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance.


Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69717&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f12114512%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s53651515372730?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=2/3/2006%2011%3A47%3A43%200%20360&pageName=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7C&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=World%20News&v1=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c3=Dana%20Priest&c4=World%20News&c5=washingtonpost.com%20Highlights&v5=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=12114512&c16=Story&c18=00&c20=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c24=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c39=ON&pid=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7Cp1&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2712114512%27%29&ot=A&oi=631&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2006 MSNBC.com




URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/


Ever get the feeling this is a proxy war between Bush and Iran?

Bush sent weapons to Israel.  Iran sent weapons to Hezbollah.  Bush must have figured that Americans wouldn't tolerate any more of his wars, so we're fighting Iran through Hezbollah via Israel.  Reminds me of a chess game.  I think this is the fault of Papa Bush.  He should have given Georgie more GI Joes to play with as a kid.


Now that there is an agreed cease fire, Israel is stepping up the offensive.  (Any surprises here?)  I wonder how many more innocent people they will kill in Lebanon - including Christians - and how much more of Lebanon's infrastructure they will destroy before they finally cease their fire.


This is the Iran I remember, looks the same now as in the 70s. Hard to believe all want us dead.

It looks pretty much the same in these pictures as it did in the 70s when I was there. We would leave Bahrain and go there because it was so western, industrialized, nice but had the most wonderful antiquities and special places. When you look at these pictures it is hard (for me) to believe that all of these people want to kill us. They do not all practice Islam in Iran so maybe that is a fact.


http://www.lucasgray.com/vidhspace=0eo/peacetrain.html


http://wwwhspace=0lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html


Nice to have a peek into Iran Lurker....sm
It looks like a beautiful country.

My guess is most Iranians don't want war with the US, it's their leader - sound familiar?

Ahmadinejad is scared Iran is next in line for a preemptive strike, as he should be. That's why he is either calling our bluff or really is prepared to go to war with the US.
McCain makes another joke about Iran. sm

Any thoughts on this???


By Michael D. Shear
Sen. John McCain hasn't had good luck joking about Iran. But he tried it again Tuesday.


Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."


He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.


Last time, it was also Iran. His singing about bombing Iran to the theme of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann" drew derision from many quarters but a "lighten up" response from McCain


Ummm....what about that whole Iran-Contra Scandal...LOL (nm)
x
To be safe from terrorists and nukes from Iran
x
What's listed here for Iran-Iraq War time
USA (as in us). We already knew about that stuff. In terms of these 2006 links, you might want to try reading up on this subject a little more. There are whole libraries of publications, including exhaustive US govermental studies, that refute your claim and, in fact, WMDs have yet to be found there. Saddam had abandoned this program, but of course, we hung him anyway. This is what we do with uppety puppets that go rogue on us.
Violence flares in Iran after election.
Look at MSNBC website. Lots of protests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31238321/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

TEHRAN, Iran - Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as "treason".

The violence broke out as Iran's interior minister said that Ahmadinejad had gained 62.6 percent of the vote.

NBC News reported "violent clashes" between rock-throwing protesters and police in the center of Tehran.
*********************************
*********************************

ALSO, some think this election as voting fraud.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's Interior Ministry claimed hard-line incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heading for a surprise landslide victory Saturday in the country's stormy presidential elections. But his pro-reform rival countered that he was the clear victor and accused authorities of voter fraud.

The dispute sharply boosted tensions and raised fears of a standoff after an intense monthlong race between the combative president and his main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi. A large turnout at the polls had boosted victory hopes for Mousavi, who is backed by a growing youth-oriented movement

Violence flares in Iran after election.
Look at MSNBC website. Lots of protests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31238321/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

TEHRAN, Iran - Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as "treason".

The violence broke out as Iran's interior minister said that Ahmadinejad had gained 62.6 percent of the vote.

NBC News reported "violent clashes" between rock-throwing protesters and police in the center of Tehran.
*********************************
*********************************

ALSO, some think this election as voting fraud.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's Interior Ministry claimed hard-line incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heading for a surprise landslide victory Saturday in the country's stormy presidential elections. But his pro-reform rival countered that he was the clear victor and accused authorities of voter fraud.

The dispute sharply boosted tensions and raised fears of a standoff after an intense monthlong race between the combative president and his main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi. A large turnout at the polls had boosted victory hopes for Mousavi, who is backed by a growing youth-oriented movement

One million people are protesting in Iran...sm

What the Mousvi supporters are trying to do in  Iran is to show the world that they can bring down the  Ahmedinejad and hopefully also the leader of the theocray


WITHOUT


the meddling of the US for which they did not ask.


There are also in  the cleric council contradicting opinions regarding the legitimate outcome of the election and how to proceed in solving this massive protests.


Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, left the country to Russia!! 


This shows AGAIN  the diplomatic excellence of Obama AND Biden when they held back their meddling and interfering, letting the people try it on their own!


If it were up to McCain and Cheney they would have made out of this conflict a 2nd-Iraq siituation, probaly invaded Iran!


 


US, Israel planned ME war

Why does none of this surprise me?















'US, Israel planned ME war'
13/08/2006 11:06  - (SA)  



New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.

But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.

The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.

If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.

Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington to get a green light for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and to find out how much the United States would bear.

The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.

US government officials have denied the charges.

Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.

There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, the report quotes the former official as saying. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.


 


Israel solution

Move the state of Israel to Virginia, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson can fight over the honor, and see how much y'all love Israel then.


I am not asking you to discuss Israel. sm

I know that it happens all the time.  I am sorry that it does.


You don't have to go to Israel to know right from wrong.
Occupation, blockade, genocidal war of attrition, settlement expansion, diasporas of refugees, no right to return, the wall, imposition of police state, creation of open air prisons/terrorist breeding gounds, countless treaty violations, repeated invasions, plunder of resources, wholesale murderous slaughter featuring killing, generations of widows, widowers and orphans, maiming for life and massive destruction of property...just to name a few things off the top of my head.
Why Israel Fights

Why the Israeli attack helps the US by taking on Hamas now and why this time Israel may succeed in Gaza. A well-written perspective on Gaza, Israel, Hamas. This adds more to consider as we all discuss this war.


Why Israel Fights
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 4, 2009


The Israeli assault on Hamas in Gaza is going to be a replay, we’re told, of the attempt to subdue Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006. And the outcome, it’s asserted, will be the same: lots of death and destruction, no strategic victory for Israel and a setback for all who seek peace and progress in the Middle East.


Obviously, war is an unpredictable business, so I say this with some trepidation: I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza.


For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.


What’s more, the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes — political, strategic and military — it made in Lebanon. That doesn’t mean it won’t make them all over again. The same prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is in charge, after all. But, today’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, is very different from his predecessor, the weak and unqualified Amir Peretz. So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006.


In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.


And, of course, not all military efforts against terror fail. Recall Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, when, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon, Israel succeeded in ripping up established terror networks and began the defeat of the second intifada. Israel also was able to avoid a long-term re-occupation, while retaining the ability to go back in on anti-terror missions. What’s more, the 2002 bloodshed didn’t seem to do lasting damage to hopes for progress or moderation on the West Bank. After all, it’s Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, not the West Bank, that became a Hamas stronghold.


An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.


But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States — whether led by George W. Bush or Barack Obama — will stand with Israel as it fights.


But Israel — assuming it succeeds — is doing the United States a favor by taking on Hamas now.


The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.


But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.


With respect to Iran, Obama may well face — as the Israeli government did with Hamas — a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option. But Israel’s willingness to fight makes it more possible that the United States may not have to. 


Who does Israel belong to? So you are saying

the U.N. overstepped its bounds?  And what about the United Kingdom that controlled the area in the early 1900s? 


Like it or not nations are formed through civil war.  There are winners and there are losers.  It's really very simple.  The process has not changed for centuries and it will never change.  The strong prevail.  The righteous prevail. The minute we take a liberal viewpoint, that's the exact minute we become weak. 


So, even after Israel withdrew from
Gaza, the Hamas still continued bombing Israel. Who is the aggressor?
Not as scary as the the aircraft carriers now heading for Iran.


http://www.rawstory.com/


US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike


05/11/2006 @ 10:53 am


Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna


Use of Iraq terror group bypassed Congress, sources say


Advertisement





Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.


According to military and intelligence sources, an air strike on Iran could be doable in June of this year, with military assets in key positions ready to go and a possible plan already on the table.


Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an immediate need.


In March/April of this year [the US] was pushing for quick closure, a thirty day window, says a source close to the UN Security Council, describing efforts by the Administration to shore up enough support to get a UN Chapter 7 resolution.


A UN Chapter 7 resolution makes it possible for sanctions to be imposed against an uncooperative nation and leaves the door open to military action.


The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007, but that things remain volatile given this administration’s penchant for having their own way.


Strike could come earlier than thought


Other military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.


Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags.


Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.


I would expect two or three aircraft carriers would be moved into the area, Gardner said, describing what he thinks is the best way air strikes could be carried out without disengaging assets from US fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Two air-craft carriers are already en route to the region, RAW STORY has found. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently made a port call in Singapore, and the USS Enterprise which left Norfolk, Virginia earlier this month, are headed for the Western Pacific and Middle East. The USS Ronald Reagan is already operating in the Gulf.


In addition to aircraft carrier activity, Gardiner says, B-2 bombers would be critical.


I would expect the B-2's, the main firepower asset, to be flown on missions directly from the United States, Gardiner explained. I would expect B-52's to be flown in strikes from the UK and Diego Garcia.


Finally, he added, a large number of cruise missiles would be fired from the carrier support ships.


Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, says that the B-2 bomber is capable of such long range activity.


The B2 bomber was designed, with the Soviet Union in mind, for intercontinental operations, Aftergood said. With aerial refueling, it has a range of up to 10,000 miles.


Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently.


Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.


All sources, however, agree that given the administration’s interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing. Furthermore, all sources agree that Gardiner’s scenario is the most probable, including an estimated duration and pause assessment.


Gardiner believes that the entire initial operation could run quickly, roughly 24-72 hours. Most of the strikes would be at night, he said. The Iranian nuclear facilities will be targeted; more important however, a major effort would focus on Iran's capability to retaliate. The US will target missile facilities, air bases and naval assets.


After the initial effort, there will be a pause during which time the Iranians will be told that if they retaliate, the air strikes would continue, he added.


The Pentagon did not return calls for comment.


Advance teams under way; Congress ‘bypassed’


As previously reported by Raw Story, a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used on the ground in Iran by the Pentegon, bypassing US intelligence channels. The report was subsequently covered by the Asia Times (Article).


Military and intelligence sources now say no Presidential finding exists on MEK ops. Without a presidential finding, the operation circumvents the oversight of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.


Congressional aides for the relevant oversight committees would not confirm or deny allegations that no Presidential finding had been done. One Democratic aide, however, wishing to remain anonymous for this article, did say that any use of the MEK would be illegal.


In addition, sources say that a March attack that killed 22 Iranian officials in the province of Sistan va Baluchistan was carried out by the MEK.


According to a report by Iran Focus filed Mar. 23, the twenty-two people killed in the ambush included high ranking officials, including the governor of Zahedan.


Hours after the attack took place, Ahmadi-Moqaddam announced there was evidence the assailants had held meetings with British intelligence officers, the Iranian news service reported.


Radical Shiite cleric Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi also claimed the people behind the attack were the same as those behind a spate of bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005, it added.


Military and intelligence sources say that MEK assets were responsible for this attack, but did not know if the US military was involved or if US military assets were part of the ambush.


One former high ranking US intelligence official described the use of MEK as more of a Cambone operation than a Department of Defense operation.


Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a stalwart neo-conservative, is considered by many to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s right-hand man.


During a White House briefing in early May, outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan denied that the administration was using MEK, among several other terrorist organizations named, for ground activity in Iran.


There are numerous reports about low-intensity operations ongoing in Iran from three different places -- PKK going over the border into Iraq, the MEK southern border of Iraq into Iran, and also certain operations from Balochistan involving also the Pakistanis, a reporter asked. Does the U.S. have a policy, given also reports which I know you won't comment on, on possible special forces operations in Iran?


Our policies haven't changed on those organizations, McClellan said. They remain the same. And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations.


We would never cooperate with them, in terms of— the questioner continued.


Our policy hasn't changed, McClellan replied.


Military, intelligence community alarmed


According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.


One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of ‘coercion’ aimed at Iran, Hersh wrote.


The increase in violence on the southern border of Iran, the movement of aircraft carriers into the region, the insistence of Iran’s leadership that they intend to be a player on the nuclear stage and the Bush Administration’s focus on regime change make military and intelligence sources nervous.


[President] Bush thinks that history will judge him as a great leader, not unlike Winston Churchill, one former high-ranking military intelligence official remarked.


For now, Gardiner and others remain on the sidelines as the Administration plots their next move.