ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/19/2017 06:04 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.615 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/01/2007 10:41 PM ID: 65284 Permalink   

Neocons Told to Look for Reasons to Attack Iran

 

British newspaper the Sunday Telegraph claims that Members of the US secretariat in the UN have been asked to "search for things that Iran has done wrong", in order to justify military strikes against the country

Many observers claim the exercise is reminiscent of attempts by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to build the case for war with Iraq and expect it to boost support for an attack on Iran inside and outside the administration.

Concern is also being expressed in the CIA and the Pentagon that the US Administration exaggerated intelligence which was used as a basis for an Israeli air attack on Syria last month.

 
  Source: www.telegraph.co.uk  
    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  29 Comments
  
  The US government  
 
is certifiably insane. They are totally off the deep end. Lord help us all.
 
  by: Lurker     10/01/2007 10:48 PM     
  How do these fruitcakes stay in power?  
 
Just.... how?!
 
  by: daniel2508     10/01/2007 11:14 PM     
  @daniel2508  
 
Easy. Mix in a bit of apathy with a dash of a loud minority that has a love for authoritarianism and viola. Enslaved populace that has to do the bidding and fight the wars of evil men!
 
  by: slavefortheman     10/01/2007 11:29 PM     
  @sftm  
 
I'd retort your comment about my apathy, but I don't feel like it.

:)
 
  by: fballer23   10/02/2007 12:02 AM     
  we americans  
 
only need to hold out 1 year 1 month and 3 days then we can celebrate being bush free.
 
  by: kross10c   10/02/2007 12:52 AM     
  UN?  
 
Why the US Secretariat at the UN? Wouldn't you use the CIA and State Department?
 
  by: david m barger     10/02/2007 01:24 AM     
  @kross  
 
if only it were that simple. the top three democrats are unwilling to take nuclear holocaust off the table.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     10/02/2007 01:41 AM     
  @david m barger: do you know who pays for UN?  
 
$5bn or so per year.

A fraction of the running costs - but the largest fraction.
Enough to have a veto.
Enough to sway all 'lesser' nations.
A permenant seat on the Security Council.
A spinnable jurisdiction / mandate on the world. (Manifest Destiny?)

And for our current plans;
Cheap at 5 times the price.
 
  by: redstain   10/02/2007 01:45 AM     
  @kross  
 
Sadly, it's not the Americans who have the most to be
concerned about Bush being in the White House.
 
  by: Mister crank     10/02/2007 02:07 AM     
  @redstain  
 
You misunderstand my question. Why would you have the US secretariat in the UN search for Iranian wrongdoing? The CIA would make sense, as it is an intelligence agency. [That's intelligence, not intelligent. :)] The state department calling on other countries for the information. The UN? What are you going to get from the UN that you wouldn't get from the State Department?
 
  by: david m barger     10/02/2007 02:08 AM     
  IMO there is a real reason  
 
to bomb Iran. From all that I have studied, it's largely economic (but not the only reason).

When you have oil instead of gold backing your currency, if anyone wants to sell their oil in anything but the dollar, you're in big trouble financially.

Iraq switched over to Euros. We invade them. Venezuela does the same thing, the CIA attempts to overthrow Chavez. Now Iran switches over to Euros, regime change is in the works.

Basically the question is: how long do you want to maintain your standard of living? If we don't go to war with Iran, we're (the US) is in an economic depression much sooner than later.

At least war with Iran would allow us to hold off the upcoming depression for a little while longer. Then again, by going to war, the economic depression will be much, much worse when it does eventually hit. Plus you have increased instability and the greater possibility of another world war.

Just like the Romans, this empire can't last forever. Big changes are coming.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   10/02/2007 02:08 AM     
  Why are they doing this!?  
 
This goes beyond greed. This is beyond a thirst for oil. To me, this goes
right to the heart of a belief that there are some races on this earth that just
aren't worth as much as a God fearing white, conservative American. I think
what we are seeing is the rise of an institutionalised KKK and the spreading
of a philosophy of racial superiority. This may sound completely batsh*t, but
tell me, why else are people drooling for reasons to sound the drums of war
and death?
 
  by: Mister crank     10/02/2007 02:15 AM     
  @QA  
 
I understand little about economics, but from the gist of your post I take it that you believe the fall of the dollar is inevitable?

Surely it would be better for the dollar to just die a dignified death now, rather than plunge the country further into debt in another fund-raiser (war) for Bush and Co?
 
  by: daniel2508     10/02/2007 03:22 AM     
  U think?  
 
"only need to hold out 1 year 1 month and 3 days then we can celebrate being bush free."

If Bush starts another war. What makes you think he won't use his powers to forcably stay President. I mean, he doesn't half to step down...it is war time. So 1 year, 1 month, 3 days could be more like 3 years, 4 months, 28 days. LOL...
 
  by: slayer06   10/02/2007 04:07 AM     
  @slayer  
 
Please cite your evidence that Bush does not have to observe the term limits established by the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution which was ratified on 2/27/1951. I believe that you may be pulling that little snippet from somewhere below your belt-line where the sun doesn't shine.
 
  by: tomblik     10/02/2007 06:18 AM     
  @tomblik  
 
I'm not american and I know about that.

It was done before as well... World War 2 I think. Rosevelt I think?
 
  by: RV3   10/02/2007 08:18 AM     
  No need to look hard; the reasons are plentiful  
 
If neo-cons were eager to find reasons to justify a war with Iran, they needn’t look far or deep.

- Iran continues to support and endorse terrorist organizations that pose significant threats to nations within the mid-East, and throughout the world.
- Iran persists to arm and train militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, further destabilizing peace-keeping and political reconstruction efforts… and assisting the enemy in sending our boys home in body bags.
- Iran captured 15 British soldiers at gunpoint in Iraqi waters. This lone offense is recognized as an Act of War under the Geneva Convention and International Law. If neo-cons were as insatiously crazed for war, as some of you suggest, Iran presented a fully justifiable reason in gold-plated form and served it on a silver platter.

Many of you ask why the US and other nations are so bent against Iran possessing nuclear weapons and why we are so determined to prevent this from ever happening.
After all Pakistan, India, Russia, and the US possess them. And Israel is rumored to possess nuclear capability, as well.
The answer to this can be summarized in two sentences:
1) None of the nuclear-capable nations mentioned have vigorously threatened the destruction of another nation whilst conducting nuclear programs.
2) No other leader is openly courting for the Apocalypse, as Ahmadinejad is.

I’ve mentioned Ahmadinejad’s desire for the return of the 12th Imam (the Mahdi) in many posts. The link below will give you a better understanding of his intentions, as well as some background. Very good video. Worth the few minutes to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/...


Additionally, CNN has produced a very informative documentary titled, “Ahmadinejad: Soldier of God”. It, too, explores Ahmadinejad’s obsession of the Mahdi and how this obsession may cause Ahmadinejad to lead a regional conflict. Check your listings for this documentary, watch it, and become educated as to what and who we are in conflict with.

@RV3
"It was done before as well... World War 2 I think. Rosevelt I think?"
Very correct.

George Washington served 2 terms as President. He was greatly encouraged by politicians and the people to run for a 3rd term but declined, stating that no man is to rule as a king.
Since setting this precedent, it was an unwritten rule that presidents should only serve 2 terms, although the unspoken rule was widely accepted and respected.
Roosevelt served as President from 1933-1945 having won elections for 4 terms, but died shortly into his 4th term.

It wasn't until 1951 that Congress passed the 22nd Amendment that finitely set Presidential term limits.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
 
  by: CArnold     10/02/2007 09:55 AM     
  @tomblik  
 
'Emergency Powers' - the possibility to withhold elections at times of war.
 
  by: ofWolfandMan   10/02/2007 10:13 AM     
  World War 3  
 
I had a thought about that. Reminded me of that film, 'When the Wind Blows' (1986).

I'm actually worried the US administration may do something that stupid. I mean, if they had something to lose, if they didn't have bunkers to crawl into and leave us all to rot, then they might think twice.

But really, what's their incentive for acting rationally?
 
  by: Maxx20     10/02/2007 01:59 PM     
  Act of War  
 
CA is right to suggest that the capture of British servicemen is a casus belli, but only for Britain!

The US can't go to war over it; it's like a third party contract!
 
  by: DavidSJA   10/02/2007 02:52 PM     
  @DavidSJA  
 
Woa. If that's casus belli, hell, the world has a lot of those against a couple of country that I will not name for the sake of not stating a flame parade.
 
  by: RV3   10/02/2007 03:11 PM     
  Don't forget the zionists....  
 
Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/...
 
  by: Reader11722   10/02/2007 10:28 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
"None of the nuclear-capable nations mentioned have vigorously threatened the destruction of another nation whilst conducting nuclear programs."

Uh... Wait a minute. The US is still conducting nuclear research and so are several of our allies. We butchered Iraq and many other countries in the past.

"In 2005 the U.S. revised its nuclear strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to use nuclear weapons preemptively against adversary WMDs or overwhelming conventional forces." -Wikipedia

IMO thats pretty threatening... Using nuclear weapons against nations that dont even possess them! If I were Iran I would take that as a direct threat.
 
  by: slavefortheman     10/02/2007 11:03 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
"In 2005 the U.S. revised its nuclear strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to use nuclear weapons preemptively against adversary WMDs or overwhelming conventional forces."

This came about with the discussion of military options that would be capable of defeating the highly reinforced underground bunkers that are reportedly used to house their nuclear facilities.

These tactical weapons are not designed to wipe out tens or hundreds of square miles of land. They’re designed to burrow through dirt and rock and detonate at specified depths. The warheads create an explosion capable of destroying the underground facility, but do so without causing widespread devastation or radioactive fallout on the surface.
Don’t think “mushroom cloud”. Think earth-tremor with over 90% of the explosion occurring underground.
Minimal surface damage. Minimal fall-out. Minimal casualties. Mission accomplished.

Compare that with what “could be” if the Iranian got their hands on a nuclear weapon… And then consider which option you’d prefer.
 
  by: CArnold     10/03/2007 11:00 AM     
  where's the story that says...  
 
where's the story that says "analysts told to look for reasons not to attack Iran" ?? That ^ and several other options probably are being considered constantly based on whatever people know at the time. That one doesn't make such a sellable headline, eh?
 
  by: bobjones     10/03/2007 05:50 PM     
  @bobjones: i disagree  
 
"where's the story that says "analysts told to look for reasons not to attack Iran" ?? [...] That one doesn't make such a sellable headline, eh? " -bobjones

On the contrary, I think - with the current administration - it would make news. Shocking news.

Nobody would believe it though.
http://www.youtube.com/...
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.
 
  by: redstain   10/04/2007 12:40 AM     
  @redstain  
 
How many thousands of analysts that work for the US government now also worked there during the Clinton era? Probably a LOT. Do you think they all all-of-a-sudden started issuing "neocon" opinions? 'cuz if so, that's ridiculous. Chances are that they have multi-sided opinions on all relevant issues/potential military scenarios. My point is that the US gov't is probably a lot more robust than you're figuring, regardless of who is at the executive helm.
 
  by: bobjones     10/04/2007 04:38 PM     
  @Bob  
 
I think you've stumbled onto the point but missed it.

The whole point is they HAVENT been ordered to compile information on Iran, they've been ordered to compile files on why Iran should be invaded.
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     10/04/2007 04:49 PM     
  Extra  
 
Its cart before horse thinking.

They want to invade Iran, so now they're looking for reasons to.

Your supposed to look at the facts and make a choice, not make a choice then find facts to support it.
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     10/04/2007 04:50 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com