US PREPARING FOR STRIKE ON IRAN

[fagash_killer]

this goes to arabman and some other who are thinking the americans will not invade iran just read this article however they wil stay time out of the picture while the battle begins between isreal and iran the americans will give enough arms and tiknikos to isreal they americans knew ahmed is an extremist thats why the helped him to win the elections like i said think about it why did the americans invaded iraq and afghanistan simple iran is in the middle of them the americans will with just wait when the isreal attacks iran and these new extemist dicator will ofcourse attack back but with nucliar weapons and hey see the american where right irans go nuclear weapons the eu will feel embrassed cuss they didnt listend to america since america is ofcours the superpower of the wolrd but hey bush will say he i will forgive u guys just stay alert and hey why wont u guys join us against iran americans toke it once again smart out while they are the once behind the destruction of iran regime they destroyed once hitler regime saddam regime stali regin poetin regime he why not iran regime after iran collapsed the next q would be what kind of strategy will the americans used next ore what kind of muslim countrie should they use ore will cuba and their other enemies will be next whatever it may be the un will be this tim 100% behind them and they will trust him they got no other options bush defeated sure all his enemies america is sure the new superpower of the world we can only defeat them if third world countries will unite against america remember we got germanys who are still angry that the americans defeated them thats why the germanys are this time neutral u wont see them as lackers sending their army to iraq and serving bush i salut them however the master of the eu are the brittsh french and they will sure protect the interest of their adeer bush can we stop them only time will tell its time for revoluty with an good new leader allah akbar


By Guardian Unlimited / World news 01:17pm

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector to Iraq and at one time a US marine, warned in apocalyptic terms in London last night of a US-led attack on Iran, writes Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor.

Mr Ritter - a high-profile opponent of the war in Iraq - is not resting on his laurels after having accurately predicted that no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq and that US-led forces would be caught in a quagmire.

Speaking in a debate at the ICA about the prospects of military action against Iran, Mr Ritter said preparations were already under way. He said the US was backing Khalq insurgents who are carrying out raids in southern Iraq, and air bases were being readied in Central Asia.

Is this the stuff of fantasy, or is there a real prospect of an air attack to disrupt Iran’s nuclear facilities? Tehran claims its nuclear programme is purely for peaceful, civilian purposes. The US, Britain and Israel suspect Iran is hell-bent on covertly producing a nuclear bomb.

There are ominous echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq, and these became louder when a senior British official yesterday accused the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated infra-red bombs he said had been responsible for the deaths of eight British soldiers and two British security guards since May. He suggested the Iranian action could be in retaliation for UK pressure on Tehran for failing to agree a nuclear compromise.

The issue of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapon ambitions is due to go to the UN security council - another echo of the Iraq war build-up. As with Iraq, consensus within the security council for punitive action against Iran will be difficult to achieve - Russia and China are unlikely to support tough action. The US and Israel may then decide that the only option left is the military one.

The British government’s response to the prospect of military action is ambiguous. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, is clear, and has said for months that it is inconceivable for Britain to support military action against Iran.

That is realpolitik speaking: Straw knows such military action would be difficult to win cabinet approval for, and would split an already demoralised Labour party. But Tony Blair has been less categorical so far. The prime minister views Iran as one of the biggest global threats.

But even George Bush, despite Mr Ritter’s analysis that Iran is the primary target for Washington’s neo-cons, may find it difficult to take the US to war again.

The Republicans face mid-term elections next year. They will be looking for at least a partial reduction in US troops in Iraq for by then, and a complete withdrawal by the time the next presidential election comes round.

Mr Bush will not want to leave an Iraq in which Iranian influence has grown, but he may have no choice. He does not want Iran to have the bomb, but may be unable to stop it.

The US neo-cons were wrong when they predicted that Iraqis, relieved at the fall of Saddam, would on the whole welcome the US troops. They did not expect to be fighting an insurgency on the present scale.

The experience in Iraq will make it harder for the US to engage in a strike against Iran, no matter what Mr Ritter says.

[fagash_killer]

ore read this article

BUSH LETS CAT OUT OF BAG: WILL BACK ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN
George Bush has made a slip of the lip: departing from his cue cards, the president greenlighted an attack by Israel on Iran, saying the U.S. would back the attack. The news is front-page in tomorrow's European papers (like Le Monde) just days before Bush's first European trip of his second term--but U.S. media haven't yet picked up on this explosive declaration.

As the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph reports today under the headline "America would back Israel attack on Iran":

"Asked whether he would back Israel if it raided Teheran's nuclear facilities, Mr Bush first expressed cautious solidarity with European efforts, led by Britain, France and Germany, to negotiate with Iran.

"But he quickly qualified himself, adding that all nations should be concerned about whether Iran could make nuclear weapons. 'Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened.'

"His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington.

"Moments later, Mr Bush was asked another question on Iran and appeared to return to his script - this time emphasizing the need for a diplomatic effort...."

This revelatory statement by Bush signals the triumph of the neo-cons--now that the principal roadblock to their designs, Colin Powell, has left office--in the internal administration debate over what to do about Iran. As DIRELAND noted last September, the plan for an Israeli attack on Iran was behind the AIPAC spy ring's espionage which obtained classified U.S. memos on Iran:

"Some of the neo-cons were, like Sharon and Mossad, so ideologically obsessed with an attack on Iran that they were willing to go to any lengths, including espionage, to help Israel get it done. But with the Bush first-strike doctrine having been so bellicosely reiterated at the Republicans' Convention--by everyone from the president to Gen. Tommy Franks' Rove-vetted speech--if, as now seems likely, Bush wins and no longer has to face the voters again, the Target: Iran policy may move to an aggressive new level. And the Likud government is the tail wagging the dog."

The perhaps unintentional Bush revelation shows how Iran is at the top of his limited brain-pan--no doubt because his erstwhile friend, Vladimir Putin, has just made clear Russia's inalterable decision to help Iran with its nuclear program, as the Washington Post reports. With Bush and Putin scheduled to meet within days, it appears Bush--having this agenda at the top of his tiny mind--has given his handlers heartburn by revealing he's decided to play the Israeli card in part as an attempt to intimidate the Russians into abandoning their help-Iran-with-nukes plan. (Remember when Bush told us he'd "looked into Putin's soul" and found him to be a democrat and man of peace? Wrong on both counts, our soul-envisioning president, wasn't he?)

In any case, in European capitals Bush's specific targeting of Iran in his State of the Union speech was interpreted as a pounding of the war drums. Despite Bush's praise for the diplomatic efforts of Germany, France, and other EU countries to negotiate a solution to the Iran nuclear proliferation problem, the power of neo-con ideology and the imperial will of a president with a militaro-missionary attitude toward international affairs (as he made clear in his famous interview with Bob Woodward, recounted in Woodward's book Plan of Attack) appear to have triumphed over European insistence that the world must find a political sortie to the problem posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Bush's State of the Union speech, of course, played right into the hands of Iran's hardliners, and undermined the attempts of reformist Iranian civil society to foster a less paranoid world-view than that of the ayatollahs. A U.S.-backed attack by Israel on Iran will have seismic consequents far outside the confines of the ancient Persian nation, further spurring the Islamist fundamentalists' ability to recruit. Moreover, with the Iranian-backed Shiites and their allies in Iraq now having won an absolute majority in the elections there, such an attack would inevitably push the new highly-religious Iraqi political leadership--and volatile Iraqi public opinion, already overwhelmingly opposed to the bloody U.S. occupation--toward establishment of a hard-line, Islamic state.

Dark days appear to be ahead.

P.S. Tonight's edition of Belgian public television's main news program broadcast an exclusive White House interview with Bush in advance of the president's arrival in Brussels that contains another embarassing Bush moment. Asked whether differences on Iraq would cloud his visit with the Belgian government, Bush launched into an anecdote about his trip to a chocoloate merchant on his last Belgian excursion. Then, as his attractive female interviewer thanked him and stood up to leave, Bush--apparently thinking the cameras were already off--muttered with a sly look and salacious grin, "You have beautiful eyes!" This on-air flirt, which could be seen Stateside where I caught it, on the international francophone channel TV 5 (of which Belgian TV is a co-sponsor), is being replayed on European television, but -- since our linguistically challenged U.S. TV honchos don't bother with frog-speaking telly--no stateside network has yet picked up Bush's cruising of the Belgian correspondent. Laura, needless to say, wasn't in the room for this "family values" moment...

[North brother]

Israeli defence officials have long dismissed demolished Iraq as a minor threat, even though it likely has between six and 18 old Scud missiles hidden away. Saddam did not use chemical weapons in 1991 for fear of Israeli nuclear retaliation. Israel now has the world's most advanced anti-missile system, Arrow, with two batteries operational, and numerous batteries of the latest U.S. Patriot missiles in place.

The prevailing view in the Israeli military is that Iraq will be quickly defeated by U.S. forces, and then likely split into two or three cantons. Israel's North American supporters, however, are still being given the party line that Israel is in mortal danger from Iraq.

Iran is a different story. Iran is expected to produce a few nuclear weapons within five years to counter Israel's large nuclear arsenal, and is developing medium-range missiles, Shahab-3s and -4s, that can easily reach Tel Aviv.

With 68 million people and a growing industrial base, Iran is seen by Israel as a serious threat and major Mideast geopolitical rival. Both nations have their eye on Iraq's vast oil reserves.

Israel's newly appointed hardline defence minister, former air force chief Shaul Mofaz, who was born in Iran, has previously threatened to attack Iran's nuclear installations. Thanks to long-range F-15Is supplied by the U.S., plus cruise and ballistic missiles, Israel can strike targets all over Iran. This week, Israel's grand strategy was clearly revealed for the first time, though barely noticed by North American media, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for an invasion of Iran "the day after" Iraq is crushed.

Elections in Israel at the end of January will probably return Sharon's Likud party and its extreme rightist allies to power, this time with a strengthened position. Ferocious competition for party leadership between the iron-fisted Sharon and the even more hardline Benjamin Netanyahu suggests a further move to the far right, zero chance for peace with Palestinians, and a more aggressive policy towards Israel's unloving neighbours.

In the U.S., Pentagon hardliners are drawing up plans to invade Iran once Iraq and its oil are "liberated." They hope civil war will erupt in Iran, which is riven by bitterly hostile factions, after which a pro-U.S. regime will take power. If this does not occur, then Iraq-based U.S. forces will be ideally positioned to attack Iran. Or, they could just as well move west and invade Syria, another of Israel's most bitter enemies.

Israel's Likudniks thirst for revenge against Syria - and also Iran - for supporting Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, which drove Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Pentagon superhawk Richard Perle, told the TVO program Diplomatic Immunity that the U.S. was prepared to attack Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

By February or March, the U.S. media will likely be flooded with dire warnings about the threat to the world from Iran. Israel's American lobby will turn its guns from Iraq to Iran. "Links" will surely be "discovered" between Iran and al-Qaida. The cookie-cutter pattern that worked for whipping up war psychosis against Iraq should work just as well against Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia - and win the next national election.

[quote] What will stop them going to somalia again, these dogs wont to cause a third world war, i wonder who china and russia will side with.[/quote]

[fagash_killer]

china and russia are in the first place anti americans especally china, china dont want to lose power the only countrie america are afraid of is are chinas, russians where in the past strong when they where united but the russians knows also it was the americans who divided their countrie and thats why russians buyed many weapons to syria and iran on the other hand cuba and argenitiia are working with russians and china americans are also when it comes to force afraid os cuba and argentine they know what happend to them in the past thnx to the genius legend che chevara and fidel castro thats why also suddenly bush praised the hard work of poetin while in the past he criticsed him that he isnt doing enough of democratism he knows that russia are buying nuclair weapons to iran if russains and chinese forces will help iran only time will tell i dont really think so but we will see

[North brother]

Dont forget venzuala, argentia is angry about england invading them back in the 80s.

[fagash_killer]

let me say just say latine americans accept spain