http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

Scott Ritter Says US Attack On Iran Set For June

Mark Jensen | February 21, 2005

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.

god please no.

We are only going to war with countries we know we can beat militarily. Not the ones who ARE legitimate threats who we WILL NOT steam roll militarily, like North Korea.

We are bullies due for an assbeating. Unfortunately for you and I that assbeating will likely be in the form of a terrorist attack on us little people. Which sucks, cuz we don't make the decisions.

We got to stop playing police for the world..
Bush wants to be king of the world..
So what if Iran has ****in' weapons of Mass Destruction...just let these *****es have 'em, who cares? If we get killed, it was our time to die..

oh god please no.

**** got to get my family our of there.

i hope for world peace sakes this isnt true.

a lot can happen between now and june my american friends dont live in fear, and good posts above karma to you all. :cool:

As prophesied
There will be wars and rumors of wars and a spirit of fear with all men
and G "most quotable President EVER but for all the wrong reasons" W bush is to blame

I pray this isn't true, for many reasons.
One of which is just how sickeningly costly these damn "wars" are.

I'm telling you.....I don't give a flying dog turd anymore about the freedom of people in other places. I turn on the nightly news & see all the stories of elections & democracy in Iraq.....& I just feel numb.

If this happens.....those who elected this guy should stop with the excuses & justifications & just admit he's a ****ing disaster.

All those who voted for him & support these "wars"....I hope you or some 18 year old you love has to give up your cushy lifestyles, hit the ****in' desert, & prepare to die for this garbage.

I pray this isn't true, for many reasons.
One of which is just how sickeningly costly these damn "wars" are.

I'm telling you.....I don't give a flying dog turd anymore about the freedom of people in other places. I turn on the nightly news & see all the stories of elections & democracy in Iraq.....& I just feel numb.

If this happens.....those who elected this guy should stop with the excuses & justifications & just admit he's a ****ing disaster.

All those who voted for him & support these "wars"....I hope you or some 18 year old you love has to give up your cushy lifestyle, hit the ****in' desert, & prepare to die for this garbage.

good post. I'm sure some of the usual suspects will arrive and put down this link since it didn't come from network news and call it a conspiracy link. I think there are some credible names in the article, though, - AND IT'S NOT EXACTLY GOING OUT ON A LIMB. Every day, the White House is preparing us for more military action with little statements they put out. At some point, even those with faith in the president they claim has good character, will surely have to doubt this whole "we're just protecting our freedom" nonsense. We have weapons of mass destruction. And we don't anyone else to have any. It's not as easy to dominate the world if all the murder tools aren't in our possession...

It's getting ridicolous now, Afghanisatn I could understand sure, Iraq I can sort of understand, but Iran is just pushing it, someone needs to tell Bush to calm down, and tell him he's not the dictator of the world, He doesn't think before he does things, and it's only hurting our country because of it. North Korea is a threat, and there's no doubt in my mind we could destroy them after it came down to it, it would be a long war, but North Korea has nothign on us, they have nukes, sure, but we have the techonological power that they don't

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

Scott Ritter Says US Attack On Iran Set For June

Mark Jensen | February 21, 2005

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.
Olympia is my place of residence.

That's going to be the third war...

What's going on with Afghanistan, are U.S. Troops still there?
The news doesn't seem to talk about that alot..

Yea were biting off more than we can chew imo.

My band used to play the Capitol theatre all the time.

Fisr of all, who knows if this is true or not. Ritter has had it out for the Us for a while now.
If it is true Im not surprised. I say that in regards to both the election and bombing of Iran revelations.
If we did foix the election just a little bit in Iraq to make sure we didnt have a total theology on our hands, who cares? It was probably the right thing to do. Those people over there have never elected their own leaders and have no idea what the **** they are doing. They might need a help to get them in the right direction.

If we do bomb Iran it will be to end their nuclear program which is a good thing. I dont want Iran having Nukes anymore than I want Lil' Kim over in N. Korea having them. It will be a shame if we have to resort to bombing to get them to knock that **** off over there, but if it come to that, so be it. they cant have nukes.

by the way did no one pick up on his speech yesterday he was firing broadsides at the syrians also.

saying they must get out of lebanon or else.

seems to me most of the middle east is a target which is gonna feed the fundamentalists.

sometimes in life its best not to fight fire with fire, water works much better. :cool:

We should take care of Iran and N. korea. Your right explosivo, because they present the real threat to us. We should have got our troops out of Iraq as soon as we captured saddam though.

Fisr of all, who knows if this is true or not. Ritter has had it out for the Us for a while now.
If it is true Im not surprised. I say that in regards to both the election and bombing of Iran revelations.
If we did foix the election just a little bit in Iraq to make sure we didnt have a total theology on our hands, who cares? It was probably the right thing to do. Those people over there have never elected their own leaders and have no idea what the **** they are doing. They might need a help to get them in the right direction.

If we do bomb Iran it will be to end their nuclear program which is a good thing. I dont want Iran having Nukes anymore than I want Lil' Kim over in N. Korea having them. It will be a shame if we have to resort to bombing to get them to knock that **** off over there, but if it come to that, so be it. they cant have nukes.

why cant they have nukes you have them wehave them half the world has them, and Bush is doing his best impersonation of a tyrant ive seen in the western world since Queen victoria did it in the 19th C.



and we have been paying as a nation ever since.

why cant they have nukes you have them wehave them half the world has them, and Bush is doing his best impersonation of a tyrant ive seen in the western world since Queen victoria did it in the 19th C.



and we have been paying as a nation ever since.

:stupid:

Wow. Thats brilliant logic! Since we have nukes, why dont we just go hand them out to every other country in the world.

Hey, I just thought of something...We have nukes, so why cant Osama Bin Laden have nukes too. That would only be fair wouldnt it???

:p

Iran has been on the administrations target list for a long time this is certainly not surprising. The interesting part of what Neils reported was the election....

Had the shia (who have close ties to Iran) gotten above 50% of the vote they could have run that country anyway they please without listening to any other group within the country. When I first looked at the results I thought it was interesting to see that they had just fallen short barely. It would have no doubt been in the best interest of the Administration to make sure that the shiates did not reach the 50% plateau...this is interesting.

As for the mainstream here in the good old USA, well they are for the most part fed up with W. but remember that he was elected because of the evangelical turnout, not the mainstream like most of us here...actually it wasn't even a turnout-they filled out their ballots at church like a heard of sheep. Evangelicals (core of the republican party) don't give a **** who you bomb or who you hurt you just have to be socially conservative in the US and your in with them( almost all of the republican superstars in the party at this time are socially liberal). If you are pro-life then you can do whatever you want and you will recieve their vote, it is earliy that simple.

MAn I wish we had a guy in the whitehouse that got blowjobs from interns and new our country and every other one in the world like the back of his hand...instead we have an evangelical who without advisors like Rove and Hughes at his side could not tell you what time it was.

Here's to you W, freedom is good, evil is bad, democracy is nice, terror is evil, peace is great...this is the extent of his knowledge or at least that is all he can say without a script in front of him.

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE:

Where the **** is Bin LAden...Imagine Gore had been prez and we still did not have him...the Right Wing would be going ****ing crazy....I am a passionate patriotic american and I for one want OBL's ****ing head on a platter!

"MAn I wish we had a guy in the whitehouse that got blowjobs from interns and new our country and every other one in the world like the back of his hand...instead we have an evangelical who without advisors like Rove and Hughes at his side could not tell you what time it was."

Oh no! A BLOWJOB!!!....FROM AN INTERN!AHHHH! :eek: :rolleyes:
I miss those days. Those were some peaceful times. ;)

Just remember. This man said "Bring it on!" knowing full well it was going to be some other parent's kids that were going to meet it.

Here is some additional info on the issue:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

The focus of a considerable amount of controversy in the United States, the nuclear facility at Brushehr, Iran is being built under an agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments for $800-million. Although originally intended to be the location of a German-built reactor in the 1970s, the new reactor will be built to Russian designs, though the original reactor buildings exterior appearance will remain essentially the same. There are two reactors at Bushehr, one is in an advanced stage of completion the other has not been worked on for some time and is not currently scheduled to be completed.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it has not ratified two additional protocols to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Program 93 + 2, which is designed to prevent states from developing nuclear weapons covertly despite IAEA inspections as Iraq was able to do prior to the Gulf War. Iran maintains that it will not ratify 93 + 2 due to it being denied civilian nuclear technology for Bushehr, despite its positive record with the IAEA.

Nuclear power industry contacts between Iran and Russia are based on the intergovernmental agreements of 25 August 1992, on cooperation in the civil use of nuclear energy and in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran.

American Opposition
On 23 February 1998, the US State Department reaffirmed US opposition to Iran's nuclear program. The United States has argued that Iran has sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors are expensive, unnecessary, and could be used for military purposes. The United States strongly opposes the project, which was permitted under the NPT, and has in the past provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite this, the Russians appeared to be proceeding with work on Bushehr.

US opposition to Russian construction of Bushehr rests on three issues; first that weapons grade plutonium could be extracted from the reactor allowing the Iranians to construct nuclear weapons. Secondly, the US fears that the Russians and the Iranians are using Bushehr as a cover for the transfer of other sensitive technology that would normally be prohibited. Finally, the US is concerned that the knowledge gained by Iranian scientists working at Bushehr could further Irans nuclear weapons program.

US pressure to prevent the construction of Brushehr has not been limited to Russia. On March 6, 1998, during a visit by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ukraine announced that it would not sell turbines for use with reactors at Bushehr. The contract had been worth $45 million. Five days later, Vice President Gore met with Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and discussed, among other things, US concerns over Russian exports of nuclear and missile technology to Iran.

Iran claims that its nuclear power is for peaceful purposes and that it will help free up oil and gas resources for export, thus generating additional hard-currency revenues.

Nuclear Weapons Potential
President Mohammad Khatami said on 23 December 2002 that Iran was committed to its obligations and had no intention to develop nuclear weapons. He said that Iran's willingness to send spent fuel back to Russia showed that it did not want to use it for weapons, since the nuclear waste from Bushire plant would be taken to Russia for safekeeping.

According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal says is enough for at least 30 atomic bombs.

I have no problem at all with bombing Iran's reactor from the air. In fact I think it is a good idea. A ground war isn't really necessary.

It's getting ridicolous now, Afghanisatn I could understand sure, Iraq I can sort of understand, but Iran is just pushing it ....
True. If the US believes that Iran "wants to be liberated" like Iraq supposedly did, that will be a hard story to sell. Iran is populated by a well-educated and wordly society that has slowly imposed a steady move toward moderate democratism. Iran represents what is "right" about modern Arab nations. It is a struggle, but is moving forward, but at a pace that too slow for the USA? Or, does the US see Iran's ability to defend itself as unacceptable?

RECALL .... the Iraq situation included the bombing of nuclear generators, long before the Gulf War I. This all looks too familiar.

True. If the US believes that Iran "wants to be liberated" like Iraq supposedly did, that will be a hard story to sell. Iran is populated by a well-educated and wordly society that has slowly imposed a steady move toward moderate democratism. Iran represents what is "right" about modern Arab nations. It is a struggle, but is moving forward, but at a pace that too slow for the USA? Or, does the US see Iran's ability to defend itself as unacceptable?

RECALL .... the Iraq situation included the bombing of nuclear generators, long before the Gulf War I. This all looks too familiar.

Yes, we did hit some sites in Iraq before the first gulf war, but you make it sound like the Gulf War was us invading Iraq when It was us pushing Iraq out of a country that it invaded.

people like iran leaders , who long term dream is to bring humanity in the same religious darkness they brought their people in , shouldnt be allowed to have this kind of weapons.

i hope USA will destroy it , and i hope my country will help .

that would be one of the few good ideas of bush.

I have no problem at all with bombing Iran's reactor from the air. In fact I think it is a good idea. A ground war isn't really necessary.


At last, another level head with the rest of the story.
What people must realize is that we are not ready to take action just yet, and this is little more than another "story" from the media to grab headlines and sell papers.

The bottom line is, if nobody has to stick to their agreements, then what good are treaties?! You have to keep your word as is stated on the agreements, or they are worthless.

So if Russia is in bed with the terrorist countries such as Iran, do you expect them (Russia) to tell the very country they are selling the nukes to not to make weapons with the material they are providing?! Of course not, Russia just wants the money, they could give a **** who gets killed in the process as long as it isn't them!

What is the US to do? These nations have been raising their citizens to hate America. They teach hatred in their schools and places of worship.

The US did nothing about this problem for decades. What did that accomplish? It's the doing nothing that got the US in this problem in the first place.

These people are raised to strike out at the US when given any chance. If the US doesn't do something, in 2 or 20 years 9-11 will happen again, but next time it will be much worse. So should the US wait for them to acquire a more efficient way to cause mass casualties(Bio/Chem/Nuke)before The US acts? Or wasn't 9-11 enough for you?

I suspect that all your complaining has more to do with hatred for bush than anything else.

If your are so smart, what's your solution to the problem that the Bush administration is dealing with. Doing nothing has already proven not to work and it cost the US 9-11.

Ok I can see all of this, I would have no problem bombing Iran from the air but not sending in ground troops, that's ridicolous. But why can't someone else bomb Iran? It's our money we're spending, and Iran never said they would use it on us, they just have them. If they are threatening the world then let another country do it for once, I'm sick of all of these people paying the government money so we can Bomb countries. I back the United States 100% in whatever they do, but sometimes they have to think before they do stuff.

What is the US to do? These nations have been raising their citizens to hate America. They teach hatred in their schools and places of worship.

The US did nothing about this problem for decades. What did that accomplish? It's the doing nothing that got the US in this problem in the first place.

These people are raised to strike out at the US when given any chance. If the US doesn't do something, in 2 or 20 years 9-11 will happen again, but next time it will be much worse. So should the US wait for them to acquire a more efficient way to cause mass casualties(Bio/Chem/Nuke)before The US acts? Or wasn't 9-11 enough for you?

Do you honestly think that? Do you honestly thing everyone in the middle east are born to hate usa? Please god tell me you were joking. Raised? You think they preach about hating USA in the schools? Wow you dont really know much about anything outside USA (or the country you're from).

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Bringing up that date is a cheap way to stir up emotions.

If you believe the media's coverage of 9/11, it was done by amateur pilots with box cutters...hardly weapons of mass destruction.

http://img216.exs.cx/img216/7800/sheeple2uy.jpg

Do you honestly think that? Do you honestly thing everyone in the middle east are born to hate usa? Please god tell me you were joking. Raised? You think they preach about hating USA in the schools? Wow you dont really know much about anything outside USA (or the country you're from).

Tell me where I said "everyone in the middle east are born to hate usa". I never said "middle east" or "everyone" These are your words, not mine.

And yes, In some countries they "teach" hatred for the US in their schools and "preach" it in their places of worship. This ia a fact.

Now answer my question - "If your are so smart, what's your solution to the problem that the Bush administration is dealing with?"

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Bringing up that date is a cheap way to stir up emotions.

If you believe the media's coverage of 9/11, it was done by amateur pilots with box cutters...hardly weapons of mass destruction.

http://img216.exs.cx/img216/7800/sheeple2uy.jpg
I love your new sig neils. By the way, does that sheep have a name?....Is its name Torino? :D J/K Torino. ;) :boxing:

Do you honestly thing everyone in the middle east are born to hate usa?

NO

You think they preach about hating USA in the schools?

Um...YES! You ever heard of Madrasas?

http://img216.exs.cx/img216/7800/sheeple2uy.jpg

Ha ha ha ha :D

Not another war. The world has got too many problems already. I hope and pray this will not happen :(

All I have to say is, yay... I can't be drafted :)

Don't think we're be going to war with Iran any time soon though, but theres always a chance.

We are only going to war with countries we know we can beat militarily. Not the ones who ARE legitimate threats who we WILL NOT steam roll militarily, like North Korea.

We are bullies due for an assbeating. Unfortunately for you and I that assbeating will likely be in the form of a terrorist attack on us little people. Which sucks, cuz we don't make the decisions.



....So you would like to see you own country take a beating militarily? Get to steppin on up to Canada then. What a load of bull**** that is!!! We wouldn't back down from anyone. That includes the Soviets and China. North Korea is the equivelent of a teenager crying for attention and wanting there allowance raised. Answer me this one: Why are the same ****ers who cried that we "went it alone in Iraq and handeld the situation unilateraly" wanting us to handle North Korea unilaterly? Those ****ing foreign ******* have more to lose than we do but they want us to solve their problems by paying off that sick ****er in charge of North Korea. **** that!! They aint got **** and even if they did they are no rogue terrorist nation that we should fear launching nukes for no apparent reason. If we truly thought those ****ers had nukes and would launch em at anyone then we would hit em hard without hesitation. China has been flexing at Taiwan for years and the tension is getting worse now. What do you think our response will be if China acts aggresively? We will blast those ****ers right back to the rice patties they came from. Our sea superiority will overwelhm them. You and Neils need to get a ****in life and quit *****in about this administration and believeing every bull**** conspiracy theory that comes along.

....So you would like to see you own country take a beating militarily? Get to steppin on up to Canada then. What a load of bull**** that is!!! We wouldn't back down from anyone. That includes the Soviets and China. North Korea is the equivelent of a teenager crying for attention and wanting there allowance raised. Answer me this one: Why are the same ****ers who cried that we "went it alone in Iraq and handeld the situation unilateraly" wanting us to handle North Korea unilaterly? Those ****ing foreign ******* have more to lose than we do but they want us to solve their problems by paying off that sick ****er in charge of North Korea. **** that!! They aint got **** and even if they did they are no rogue terrorist nation that we should fear launching nukes for no apparent reason. If we truly thought those ****ers had nukes and would launch em at anyone then we would hit em hard without hesitation. China has been flexing at Taiwan for years and the tension is getting worse now. What do you think our response will be if China acts aggresively? We will blast those ****ers right back to the rice patties they came from. Our sea superiority will overwelhm them. You and Neils need to get a ****in life and quit *****in about this administration and believeing every bull**** conspiracy theory that comes along.

Dont believe much in conspiracy...ACTIONS speak louder than WERDZ.

We declare war on another county...****'d!

....So you would like to see you own country take a beating militarily? Get to steppin on up to Canada then. What a load of bull**** that is!!! We wouldn't back down from anyone. That includes the Soviets and China. North Korea is the equivelent of a teenager crying for attention and wanting there allowance raised. Answer me this one: Why are the same ****ers who cried that we "went it alone in Iraq and handeld the situation unilateraly" wanting us to handle North Korea unilaterly? Those ****ing foreign ******* have more to lose than we do but they want us to solve their problems by paying off that sick ****er in charge of North Korea. **** that!! They aint got **** and even if they did they are no rogue terrorist nation that we should fear launching nukes for no apparent reason. If we truly thought those ****ers had nukes and would launch em at anyone then we would hit em hard without hesitation. China has been flexing at Taiwan for years and the tension is getting worse now. What do you think our response will be if China acts aggresively? We will blast those ****ers right back to the rice patties they came from. Our sea superiority will overwelhm them. You and Neils need to get a ****in life and quit *****in about this administration and believeing every bull**** conspiracy theory that comes along.

If we ever go to war with China and/or Russia, the entire world can stick its head between its legs and kiss its ass goodbye. :eek:

I doubt North Korea has the delivery systems to reach the mainland US. They could probably hit Japan and definitely South Korea. This may sound Jingoistic, but I really think that if a Nuclear War doesn't happen first, the North will almost certainly become a democracy/capitalist ecomony within the next 50 years.

North Korea and Iran are using our current war situation to their advantage and are trying to strong arm the United States. Thats obvious. Its time for the pathetic United nations to take charge for a change. Let the rest of the world try to iron out these problems. Im sure that we are compiling intelligence on where these reactors are, if they are in fact completed. When all the intelligence is in and the talks fail, I predict a percise bombing of these facilities. And Im sure it will be in some sort of coalition form.

If we ever go to war with China and/or Russia, the entire world can stick its head between its legs and kiss its ass goodbye. :eek:

I doubt North Korea has the delivery systems to reach the mainland US. They could probably hit Japan and definitely South Korea. This may sound Jingoistic, but I really think that if a Nuclear War doesn't happen first, the North will almost certainly become a democracy/capitalist ecomony within the next 50 years.


"Live each day as if it were your last"........

LOL

We've had civil discussions back and forth (well, except for a little namecalling from pbds, but we've come to accept that), 41 replies in a single day, many different participants.

And the one-star bandit has to resurface...

:stupid:

Wow. Thats brilliant logic! Since we have nukes, why dont we just go hand them out to every other country in the world.

Hey, I just thought of something...We have nukes, so why cant Osama Bin Laden have nukes too. That would only be fair wouldnt it???

:p

Mate what im saying is it isnt the USA's job to decide on its own. Should go through the relevant channels to decide the course of action. And hello you talk about giving the nukes, well many a true word spoke in jest my friend seeing as you and others in the west managed to arm Iraq and the afghans so well.

Im just sayng the BUSH shouldnt make knee jerk reactions and **** the UN off. There are diplomatic ways to resolve these issues rather than just bomb the **** out of everyone you dont like injuring and killing many innocents in the process.


If you cant see that this drives the fundamentalists and gives them ammunition in their war agianst the US, then mate im sorry but youre blind.

Its called a viscious circel and something out of the ordinary needs to be done to break it, this usually involves communication not arms.

Yes, we did hit some sites in Iraq before the first gulf war, but you make it sound like the Gulf War was us invading Iraq when It was us pushing Iraq out of a country that it invaded.
Didn't suggest that at all. Simply meant to make it clear that the Iraq nuke generator site was bombed and destroyed LONG before the Kuwait situation. It was not a simple "quick fix" but, instead, a long-term strategy to keep an oil rich country defenceless.

Didn't suggest that at all. Simply meant to make it clear that the Iraq nuke generator site was bombed and destroyed LONG before the Kuwait situation. It was not a simple "quick fix" but, instead, a long-term strategy to keep an oil rich country defenceless.

Ok, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant.

I think the strategy is to not have radical leaders with nukes, not to keep an oil rich country defenseless.
Why I wont deny that Iraq being an oil rich country made the prospects of ousting its leader more appealing to the US, as far as I know we still havent stolen the oil from the Iraqis so I dont know where this theory that we want oil countried defensless comes from. I think we just dont want countries like Iran to have nukes. They are too close to Israel, and their government could be toppled at anytime in the near future. We dont know who would be controlling these weapons in ten years. They just dont have a stable government and the people who are running it now are facsist muslims.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/companysworkiniraqprofitedbushsuncle

Top Stories - Los Angeles Times


Company's Work in Iraq Profited Bush's Uncle

Wed Feb 23, 7:55 AM ET Top Stories - Los Angeles Times


By Walter F. Roche Jr. Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Iraq (news - web sites) war helped bring record earnings to St. Louis-based defense contractor Engineered Support Systems Inc., and new financial data show that the firm's war-related profits have trickled down to a familiar family name — Bush.

William H.T. "Bucky" Bush, uncle of the president and youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, cashed in ESSI stock options last month with a net value of nearly half a million dollars.


"Uncle Bucky," as he is known to the president, is on the board of the company, which supplies armor and other materials to U.S. troops. The company's stock prices have soared to record heights since before the invasion, benefiting in part from contracts to rapidly refit fleets of military vehicles with extra armor.


William Bush exercised options on 8,438 shares of company stock Jan. 18, according to reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites). He acknowledged in an interview that the transaction was worth about $450,000.


In an earnings report issued Tuesday, the firm disclosed that net earnings for the first quarter ending Jan. 31 reached a record $20.6 million, while quarterly revenue hit $233.5 million, up 20% from a year ago. As a result, the company boosted its projected annual revenue to between $990 million and $1 billion.


William Bush, 66, a onetime St. Louis bank executive and head of an investment firm, joined the board in 2000, eight months before his nephew won the White House.


The president's uncle said in an interview that he never used his family connections to help the company win contracts.


"I don't make any calls to the 202 area code," he said, referring to the long-distance dialing code for Washington.


He also said he sought legal advice before accepting appointment to the ESSI board to be certain there would be no problems.


Dan Kreher, vice president of industrial relations for ESSI, said Bush was one of several people added to the company board about five years ago, and that he was selected because he had "a long history of involvement in the local business community. We've known him for a long time."


"Having a Bush doesn't hurt," said Kreher, who acknowledged that the company was routinely engaged in Washington lobbying efforts. But, he said, Democrats, including a party fundraiser, also serve on the panel.


"It certainly doesn't hurt to have people who know who to talk to," Kreher said, adding that the president's uncle played no role in winning the firm's government contracts.


Some of the firm's Defense Department work has included no-bid, sole-source contracts, including a $48.8-million deal to refurbish military trailers.


Other Iraq-related contracts won by the firm include an $18-million pact awarded early last year under which a Maryland-based subsidiary was picked to provide communications support services to the Coalition Provisional Authority.


In March 2003, in announcing the U.S. Army's purchase of $19-million worth of its protective shelters for chemical and biological weapons, then-ESSI Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Shanahan stated: "The potential threat of our troops facing a chemical or biological attack during the current conflict in Iraq remains very real."


Other company contracts have raised questions.


Last week, Defense Department officials disclosed that ESSI contracts issued in 2002 with a cumulative value of $158 million had been referred to the Pentagon (news - web sites) inspector general's office for investigation. The contracts were supervised by a former Defense official who was sentenced to prison for improperly aiding another contractor, Boeing Co.





Pentagon Acting Undersecretary Michael Wynne said he had referred the contracts "that appear to have anomalies in them." Wynne and his aides would not elaborate on those anomalies. Other contracts referred for review included pacts with Accenture (formerly called Andersen Consulting), Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

In a briefing with stock analysts Tuesday, Gerald A. Potthoff, ESSI president, played down the significance of the probe, stating that the company contracts were under review simply because they were awarded on a sole-source basis.

He said he was confident it would "have no effect" on the company and that the probe was focused on the actions of government officials, not ESSI.

"We will cooperate fully," he added.

The ESSI contracts now being reviewed by the inspector general came in a series of awards by the U.S. Air Force for a piece of equipment known as a Tunner.

Named after a former Air Force major general, the Tunner is in wide use by the Air Force to swiftly load and unload large military transport aircraft. It can handle 60,000 pounds of cargo at a time.

The Tunner has also proven a valuable workhorse for ESSI, accounting for the bulk of a $35.1-million or 20% boost in its revenues in ESSI's heavy military division in 2002.

Shortly before the disclosure of the investigation, the Air Force announced that it had awarded the ESSI subsidiary another $9-million contract under the Tunner program.

The company describes itself as "a diversified supplier of high-tech, integrated military electronics, support equipment and logistics services for all branches of America's armed forces and certain foreign militaries."

Company officials acknowledge the war is an economic boon to the firm.

In its quarterly earnings report a year ago, then-Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Gerald L. Daniels said: "The increasing likelihood for a prolonged military involvement in Southwest Asia by U.S. forces well into 2006 has created a fertile environment for the type of support … products and services that we offer."

Other ESSI products that have seen use in the current conflicts include radar and detection services, field medical stations and field electric generator units.

The company's record growth has come from increased orders coupled with an aggressive buyout strategy. William Bush's company, Bush-O'Donnell, was paid $125,000 to serve as a consultant in ESSI's buyout of a military contractor three years ago.

With about 3,500 employees, some stationed in Iraq, ESSI's North America operations stretch from Nova Scotia to Florida. Most recently the company announced its purchase of Spacelink International LLC, a Virginia military contractor, for $150.5 million.

SEC filings also cite major contracts with the military in Saudi Arabia and China.

While some of ESSI's military contracts have been awarded through a competitive bidding process, others have not. Many of its contracts are "indefinite date-indefinite quantity" contracts, under which the size of the contracts depends on the need of the agency.

The company preference for sole-source contracts was evident early this year, with the $37.6-million purchase of Prospective Computer Analysts Inc., an electronic test equipment and engineering services firm. ESSI officials made special note that the Garden City, N.Y., firm had "a lot of sole-source contracts."

William Bush was named to the board of ESSI in 2000, eight months before his nephew was elected president of the United States.

In an interview Tuesday, the uncle said he decided to cash in the options because they would soon expire.

"The deadline was coming up, and we put in a bid on a house in Florida," William Bush said. He said he declared in advance to the company president his intentions to exercise those options.

Asked whether he was troubled by the fact that the company had earned significant revenue from the military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), the president's uncle said he would "prefer there was no business in Iraq. Unfortunately, we live in a troubled world."

He called ESSI an excellent company, and said exercising the options was "certainly not" to express any dissatisfaction with its performance.

"I'm very proud of it. They've done a wonderful job," William Bush said.

According to SEC filings, the St. Louis business executive still has options on 45,000 more shares of the company stock. He said the options he cashed in were granted when he first joined the company board.

Bush, who also sits on the company's audit committee, is paid a little less than $40,000 a year for his board and committee duties, including an annual stockholders meeting scheduled for next week. He and other board member accrue additional stock options annually.

Bush exercised the expiring options shortly after a series of announcements that the company had won additional orders totaling about $77 million to supply kits to re-armor and refurbish military equipment being used by U.S. forces in Iraq. The company has 35 employees stationed in Iraq to install the protective gear.

The company estimates the refurbishing work in Iraq ultimately could bring revenues of $200 million or more.

News of the armoring and refurbishment contracts boosted ESSI's stock to a record $60.39 per share earlier this year. The stock closed Tuesday at $54.34.

In the conference call with analysts Tuesday, ESSI's Potthoff expressed optimism that the Bush administration's proposed $82-billion supplemental defense budget submitted last week could mean substantial additional opportunities for the company in Iraq and elsewhere.

"Personally, I could not be more happy about our company's prospects," Potthoff told stock analysts.

Ah Ha! It all makes sense now!!! We invaded Iraq so Bush's uncle could make 500K. Ol' "W" sure looks after his family....

:bsflag:

Ah Ha! It all makes sense now!!! We invaded Iraq so Bush's uncle could make 500K. Ol' "W" sure looks after his family....

:bsflag:


....Yeah, especially since the Bush's come from old money and tons of it. That 500K really makes or breaks his uncle I'm sure. uh, no, not really.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

Scott Ritter Says US Attack On Iran Set For June

Mark Jensen | February 21, 2005

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.



this is hilarious, because i just heard Dubya speaking in Belgium saying he wouldn't go into IRan - ****ING LIAR< sucking up to the European union. George Bush is a ****sucker, thank God i'm canadian

This is ridiculous, these articles are coming from obscenely bias sources. NY Times, LA Times, CBS news, and the UFPPC? Come on! It's like asking an atheist to teach you about god. How can anyone be objective with sources like that. There's no compare and contrast. It’s all just a Bush bashing party. The title of this thread should be "Come and join my Bush bashing party. I've got lots of bias articles."

I mean, It couldn't be more obvious that some of these people don't care what the topic is, true or not, as long as it gives them a reason to complain about Bush. How can anyone talk seriously with them about anything when they refuse to acknowledge that there are two sides to a story?

This is ridiculous, these articles are coming from obscenely bias sources. NY Times, LA Times, CBS news, and the UFPPC? Come on! It's like asking an atheist to teach you about god. How can anyone be objective with sources like that. There's no compare and contrast. It’s all just a Bush bashing party. The title of this thread should be "Come and join my Bush bashing party. I've got lots of bias articles."

I mean, It couldn't be more obvious that some of these people don't care what the topic is, true or not, as long as it gives them a reason to complain about Bush. How can anyone talk seriously with them about anything when they refuse to acknowledge that there are two sides to a story?

Feel free to post opposing viewpoints. I'm leaving the pic post alone, but people seem to like to talk politics here and there. I certainly don't think Bush went to war to help his uncle's pocketbook; there's plenty of other reasons. But it was an interesting link. I hope people continue to post their thoughts without too much namecalling, etc.

A lot of people who try to think for themselves do seek out alternative news reports to Fox News, CNN or any major network. There are plenty of positions to have on all the countries we're invading, elections, domestic issues like The Patriot Act, etc.

To ignore opposing viewpoints is as bad as believing everything you're told.

So put up some pro-Bush articles; just don't go beserk if someone dares to criticize them...

...in the meantime, I'll post some of the pics I find that may not be 'just for fun' for everyone on this thread, where we're already talking about nasty topics like murder and corruption...

http://img146.exs.cx/img146/3851/4moer27dc.jpg

World - OneWorld.net

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=1&u=/oneworld/20050223/wl_oneworld/45361037161109169847

Iraqi Women Still Oppressed, Says Amnesty

Wed Feb 23, 9:44 AM ET World - OneWorld.net

Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb 23 (OneWorld) - Nearly two years after the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), life for Iraqi women has not improved and may actually have deteriorated in some respects, according to a new report released Tuesday by Amnesty International.

Women and girls in Iraq (news - web sites) still live in fear of violence, including killings, abductions and rapes, amid ongoing civil conflict and rampant crime, according to the report, entitled "Decades of Suffering."

They also face a raft of discriminatory laws and practices that deny them equal justice or protection from violence in the family and community, and in some cases, women rights activists have been singled out for attack by Iraqi insurgents and conservative Muslims, according to the report, which is part of Amnesty's global Stop Violence Against Women campaign.

"Iraqi authorities must introduce concrete measures to protect women," said Abdel Salam Sidahmed, director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa Programs. "They must send a clear message that violence against women will not be tolerated by investigating all allegations of abuse against women and by bringing those responsible to justice, no matter what their affiliation."

The report also cited several cases in which U.S. troops were implicated in abuse, including beatings, threats of rape, and humiliating treatment. "Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped," according to the report.


The report comes amid negotiations for the creation of a new government following the Jan. 30 elections and ongoing speculation over to what extent Islamic law will guide the drafting of Iraq's constitution by the national assembly.

The religiously conservative United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), which won a slight majority of seats in the assembly, has taken the position that the constitution should be based on Islamic law. If rigorously applied, that could mean that women's rights to child custody and inheritance, among other issues, could be negatively affected.

On the other hand, the UIA's candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, has indicated he strongly opposes Saudi-like restrictions on women's rights, noting that his wife is a full-time medical doctor. "She goes to the hospital and cuts open people's abdomens," he told the Boston Globe last week. "How could I support a law that says she can't drive a car? It's not logical."

"Iraqi authorities must ensure that the new constitution and all Iraqi legislation contain prohibitions to redress all forms of discrimination and gender-based violence against women," said Sidahmed.

The new report, which covers the plight of Iraqi women during much of the 20th century, as well as the last five years, notes that women who were dissidents, relatives of dissidents, or members of persecuted ethnic or religious groups, suffered gender-specific abuses under the Hussein, including rape and other forms of sexual violence.

In addition, the Iran-Iraq War (1980-89) and the subsequent 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) resulted in widowhood for tens of thousands of women, many of whom were reduced to abject poverty. During the 1990s, when Iraq was under a strict sanctions regimes, the mortality rate for pregnant women and mothers increased, while the mortality rate for children under five became among the worst in the world.

As Hussein relied increasingly on tribal sheikhs to maintain his rule during this period, the status of women also deteriorated as traditional defenses for violence against women were reasserted. Many women were subject to assault and even murder by male relatives if they were accused of behavior that, in the assailants' view, brought dishonor to the family.

After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, these practices have continued, despite the formation of numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to upholding women's rights and fighting abuses. Their one major victory--preventing an attempt to amend the Personal Status Law to place certain family matters under the control of religious authorities--was in part made possible by the intervention of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

Whether women's rights activists can prevent a similar move under the new government remains to be seen, however.

Just before the formal CPA handover to the interim Iraqi government in June last year, some 350 delegates to a women's rights convention in Baghdad issued a series of demands, including the disarmament of armed groups and the prosecution of U.S. and other foreign soldiers responsible for human rights abuses committed in Iraq.

The delegates also called for support for women survivors of family violence, in part through the creation of shelters for women and legislation to punish those responsible, and the assurance that women will gain equal representation in political decision-making.

Initial plans to require that half of all political candidates be women, however, were eventually abandoned in the run-up to last month's elections. Ultimately, parties were required to reserve only 20 percent of their lists for women candidates.

But the report stressed that the ongoing crime and violence represented a continuing and immediate threat to girls and women. "The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes...have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work," the report said.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12776&l=i&size=1&hd=0

US War With Iran Has
Already Begun - Ritter
By Scott Ritter
Aljazeera.net
6-20-5

Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.

This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.

It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.

But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.

By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera

Interesting article Neils. So Ritter is writing for Al Jazzera now huh? I guess we shouldnt hold that against him...

I have said all along that the reason for going into Iraq was to reshape the middle east. It's not for oil. Its not for WMD's. Its not to liberate the ingrate Iraqi people. Its to topple regimes and try to chage the makeup in that part of the world. If what Ritter says is ture, then pahse two of this plan has started. I hate to see us extending this war over there, but you have to admit that Iran has been cruisin for a brusin for a while now with it's nuke program (looks like this is true) and all the Iranian backed insurgents ****ing up things for the US in Iraq.

I do not want to see this happen. I wish that we would wrap up things in Iraq and bring the guys home. But, if we do attack Iran, I cant say they dont deserve it.

I don't buy that an invasion of Iran is imminent. The evidence that the CIA is launching dodgy operations over there doesn't do it for me. I'm sure that they are doing that sort of thing all over the world, but because people are focusing on Iran they uncover what's going on over there.

An invasion of Iran at any time would be suicide, plain and simple. The country is too huge, the people too anti-American to make it work. It would be like if the insurgents in Iraq were instead nearly the entire population of a vast and in many places desolate nation. Can't be done, and when you work in the overcommitments of troops in Iraq it's even more infeasible.

Having said that, you never know I guess.

I don't buy that an invasion of Iran is imminent. The evidence that the CIA is launching dodgy operations over there doesn't do it for me. I'm sure that they are doing that sort of thing all over the world, but because people are focusing on Iran they uncover what's going on over there.

An invasion of Iran at any time would be suicide, plain and simple. The country is too huge, the people too anti-American to make it work. It would be like if the insurgents in Iraq were instead nearly the entire population of a vast and in many places desolate nation. Can't be done, and when you work in the overcommitments of troops in Iraq it's even more infeasible.

Having said that, you never know I guess.

From what I hear, the younger citizens of Iran are pro American and want to get rid of the theocratic regime they have now.

From what I hear, the younger citizens of Iran are pro American and want to get rid of the theocratic regime they have now.

That's what we heard about young Iraqis, as well, remember.

EDIT: Having a quick your around the net it looks like what you're saying is a favourite credo of right-wing pundits. The Iranians love us!, they seem to say. I'm not accusing you of listening to these sorts of media types, but what they say has a way of filtering into the mainstream news, so maybe that's where you heard it from. I remain skeptical.

lol, I haven't read through the thread so somebody may have pointed this out already, but it's already June 22. This "report" sounds like bs to me.

lol, I haven't read through the thread so somebody may have pointed this out already, but it's already June 22. This "report" sounds like bs to me.
Read a few posts up. The thread went up in Feb.; I'm updating as it's appropriate...

That's what we heard about young Iraqis, as well, remember.

EDIT: Having a quick your around the net it looks like what you're saying is a favourite credo of right-wing pundits. The Iranians love us!, they seem to say. I'm not accusing you of listening to these sorts of media types, but what they say has a way of filtering into the mainstream news, so maybe that's where you heard it from. I remain skeptical.

I am also skeptical, but I have seen demonstations and things of that nature by the young in Iran against the regime. Iraq was different. If you demonstrated agianst Hessein, you would be killed. In Iraq we heard that everyone was against Hussein.

I think the young in Iran think that the people running their country are a bunch of old fashioned *******s. Just like I think about the people that run our country.
:D

Even if they have negative feelings toward the current regime, I dont think they would appreciate us going in there and killing thousands of people just to get rid of them. It would be like someone thinking that because we dont like Bush, they should come in a take him out of office violently. I dont think we would like that very much, no matter how much we dislike Bush.

Bush sucks.

I am also skeptical, but I have seen demonstations and things of that nature by the young in Iran against the regime. Iraq was different. If you demonstrated agianst Hessein, you would be killed. In Iraq we heard that everyone was against Hussein.

I think the young in Iran think that the people running their country are a bunch of old fashioned *******s. Just like I think about the people that run our country.
:D

Even if they have negative feelings toward the current regime, I dont think they would appreciate us going in there and killing thousands of people just to get rid of them. It would be like someone thinking that because we dont like Bush, they should come in a take him out of office violently. I dont think we would like that very much, no matter how much we dislike Bush.

I think you the nail on the head with what you said at the end there. I have heard some prominent Iranians that are harshly critical of the theocracy and that admire Western society, but having said that, would never condone an invasion of their country by the Americans or anyone else.

the ones with oil. Iran has third most oil in the world. Iraq second in oil. Fishy especially since the Bushes made their money in oil.
We are only going to war with countries we know we can beat militarily. Not the ones who ARE legitimate threats who we WILL NOT steam roll militarily, like North Korea.

We are bullies due for an assbeating. Unfortunately for you and I that assbeating will likely be in the form of a terrorist attack on us little people. Which sucks, cuz we don't make the decisions.

I've always believed they wouldn't stop at Iraq, and this plays into my worst fears, I hope it's wrong but I think it's probably true. :(

the ones with oil. Iran has third most oil in the world. Iraq second in oil. Fishy especially since the Bushes made their money in oil.

So how come we havent stolen the oil yet?

Something everybody should consider about the idea of the United States invading Iran. Iran would take 10 times the manpower and force to invade and occupy than Iraq did. Iran has not been weakened to the bone by a decade of sanctions etc... Also the landscape of Iran is not like that of Iraq. The country is almost entirely mountainous and the moral of the Iranian troops and people would most likely be considerably higher than was the case in Iraq. Iran's military is also fully prepared as it did not suffer devastating losses like Iraq did in the Persian Gulf War. Iran's military is fully intact unlike Iraq's was.

If the Federal governmnet decided to invade Iran they would have to start a draft or something and drastically increase the military budget, because like I said it would take at least 5 times the resources probably more.

Of course the US air force and Navy could destroy alot of **** critical to Iran's defence by air, but you would still have to dig Iranian tank divisons and heavy infantry division out of the mountains. Iran is also armed with very capable Anti Tanks missles.

Who's the tool with the Bacardi bandana in your signature?

Who's the tool with the Bacardi bandana in your signature?

A guy who would drop your ass and stomp your skull if one does not learn to watch his tounge.

Something everybody should consider about the idea of the United States invading Iran. Iran would take 10 times the manpower and force to invade and occupy than Iraq did. Iran has not been weakened to the bone by a decade of sanctions etc... Also the landscape of Iran is not like that of Iraq. The country is almost entirely mountainous and the moral of the Iranian troops and people would most likely be considerably higher than was the case in Iraq. Iran's military is also fully prepared as it did not suffer devastating losses like Iraq did in the Persian Gulf War. Iran's military is fully intact unlike Iraq's was.

If the Federal governmnet decided to invade Iran they would have to start a draft or something and drastically increase the military budget, because like I said it would take at least 5 times the resources probably more.

Of course the US air force and Navy could destroy alot of **** critical to Iran's defence by air, but you would still have to dig Iranian tank divisons and heavy infantry division out of the mountains. Iran is also armed with very capable Anti Tanks missles.


Thanks General McKay. I'll let Rumsfeld know that it wont be an easy job. :rolleyes:

Related story?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8313397/


U.S. spy plane crashes after Afghan mission
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane involved in a mission in Afghanistan crashed while attempting to land at its base in the United Arab Emirates, killing the pilot, the military said Wednesday.

Crash location not released
The location of the crash could not be released “due to host nation sensitivities,” U.S. Air Force Capt. David W. Small, a Central Command spokesman, said in an e-mail when asked for more information.



In Washington, Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said the plane had completed a mission and crashed while returning to its base.

A U.S. security team was at the site of the crash, he said.

The U-2 operates at an altitude of more than 70,000 feet, beyond the range of most surface-to-air missiles. It has been used by American forces for decades.

A guy who would drop your ass and stomp your skull if one does not learn to watch his tounge.

You said you didn't fight dirty.

Anyhow to the topic in general, an invasion in Iran would be insane. It'd be too hard to pull off, and we would have NO backing in this one from anyone. It'd be all on our own. Going to a draft would be a bad idea, because then you get another Vietnam: a bunch of people who don't want to be there dying, and coming back mentally, and/or physically ****ed up.

We are only going to war with countries we know we can beat militarily. Not the ones who ARE legitimate threats who we WILL NOT steam roll militarily, like North Korea.


If you knew what we had, you would recant that statement. North Korea's military pales in comparison to ours.

If you knew what we had, you would recant that statement. North Korea's military pales in comparison to ours.

How do you measure military might? Better guns/equipment? I am measuring it by how fanatical their soldiers are. Numbers of soldiers does not matter either.

Sure we will win when all is said and done. But we will leave a good share of our soldiers dead.

South Korea probably has the best military for Democratic country of its size.....THEY are scared of North Korea. ****, have you heard any of the stories about the South Korean special forces in Vietnam? They made our Marines look like freakin Sunday School kids.

How do you measure military might? Better guns/equipment? I am measuring it by how fanatical their soldiers are. Numbers of soldiers does not matter either.

Sure we will win when all is said and done. But we will leave a good share of our soldiers dead.

South Korea probably has the best military for Democratic country of its size.....THEY are scared of North Korea. ****, have you heard any of the stories about the South Korean special forces in Vietnam? They made our Marines look like freakin Sunday School kids.


Being fanatical doesn't mean much when you're dead. They(US) don't need to put soldiers on the ground to beat them. We could do that from the air and sea.

If anyone is scared, it's North Korea. They may be stupid, but they aren't that stupid. They know the minute they invade South Korea they will be annihilated.

Being fanatical doesn't mean much when you're dead. They(US) don't need to put soldiers on the ground to beat them. We could do that from the air and sea.

If anyone is scared, it's North Korea. They may be stupid, but they aren't that stupid. They know the minute they invade South Korea they will be annihilated.

WE drop a bomb, we better take out their nuclear capabilities first.

We cannot do everything from the air. Plus we will probably kill the North Korean civilian population as well.....actually we would probably be putting them out of their misery.

WE drop a bomb, we better take out their nuclear capabilities first.

We cannot do everything from the air. Plus we will probably kill the North Korean civilian population as well.....actually we would probably be putting them out of their misery.

Nuclear facilities would be the first to go along with the anti-aircraft and communications systems.

If you knew what we had, you would recant that statement. North Korea's military pales in comparison to ours.


....The USA fears no country and the North Koreans would **** their pants at the prospect of a US invasion. Why do you think that little twisted ****er is so nervous about our intentions all the time. If he wasn't scared to death of us then he wouldn't cry like a little *****. It ****in kills me to hear people say that we would have problems with North Korea in an all out assault. Too funny

We are only going to war with countries we know we can beat militarily. Not the ones who ARE legitimate threats who we WILL NOT steam roll militarily, like North Korea.

We are bullies due for an assbeating. Unfortunately for you and I that assbeating will likely be in the form of a terrorist attack on us little people. Which sucks, cuz we don't make the decisions.

You really shouldnt talk about things that you dont know **** about. Alright look, its not that north korea is weak its just that there country stopped buying weapons and aircraft from foreign countries 32 years ago. If a country is in dier need of military equipment how could they defend themselves against a super power like the US. I dont think that it would be easy but it would not yield the same high numbers of death as the first korean war.

....The USA fears no country and the North Koreans would **** their pants at the prospect of a US invasion. Why do you think that little twisted ****er is so nervous about our intentions all the time. If he wasn't scared to death of us then he wouldn't cry like a little *****. It ****in kills me to hear people say that we would have problems with North Korea in an all out assault. Too funny

LOL! He's already ****ting his pants. Invading North Korea would be like invading Idaho. LOL!

Well a little worse than that but you get the idea.

Being fanatical doesn't mean much when you're dead. They(US) don't need to put soldiers on the ground to beat them. We could do that from the air and sea.

If anyone is scared, it's North Korea. They may be stupid, but they aren't that stupid. They know the minute they invade South Korea they will be annihilated.

Ask anyone who knows about military matters: rule #1 is that you need to have infantry on the ground to actually take over the land, no matter how much you pummel it by air and sea. The fact is that you can hide quite easily these days from long range bombing and missiling, so there will still be plenty of troops around when you send the foot soldiers in.

People think that Gulf War I proved that you can win a war in the air. The thing is that the aerial bombing hurt, but what hurt Saddam even more was that he treated his soldiers like **** and they defected over the other side by the thousands.

EDIT: I still think they would probably be annihilated, just wanted to point that out :cool: .

What a bunch of fear mongering...

Sad.

Today is October 24th by the way...

Did I miss the war?

Did I miss the war?

:lol1: :lol1:

Did I miss the war?


...Yeah, 2 plus years later right. I can see why this is one old thread that Neils didn't bump. :banana:

we borowed marty mcfly's delorean and this time were going back in history to change it.

we borowed marty mcfly's delorean and this time were going back in history to change it.

where we're going we dont need roads.

.....This thread needs to stay bumped IMO.

.....This thread needs to stay bumped IMO.

I agree. These leftist types need to acknowledge when they are wrong with their little paranoia rants.

try and cover the fact of losing a war by invading another country. happened many times in history...*puts flamesuit on*

try and cover the fact of losing a war by invading another country. happened many times in history...*puts flamesuit on*



....I have no clue what the **** your talking about in the context of bumping this thread and I suspect you don't either.

....I have no clue what the **** your talking about in the context of bumping this thread and I suspect you don't either.

id dint bumb it , it was already on the front page... it got my attention

It was fun to read those old post again. :wave:

It's getting ridicolous now, Afghanisatn I could understand sure, Iraq I can sort of understand, but Iran is just pushing it, someone needs to tell Bush to calm down, and tell him he's not the dictator of the world, He doesn't think before he does things, and it's only hurting our country because of it. North Korea is a threat, and there's no doubt in my mind we could destroy them after it came down to it, it would be a long war, but North Korea has nothign on us, they have nukes, sure, but we have the techonological power that they don't
Where is that idiot Dog JIM JEFFRIES when you need him...

He should read this and educate himself.

Vote McCaiN!!

I wanna see America destroy itself with its stupidity.

You people are so easy to fool you know.

Much changes 02-22-05....oh swucks I older and Iran is still okay..some what.