Sabre Rattling in the Persian Gulf

hamidm # 10 ``i would be happy to pay an extra 1% this april 15th if we can get rid of the ayatollahs and other bearded vermin that threaten civilization``

Iraq war has so far cost nearly $3000 to every american citizen. While this may not be much to hamidm, it is a lot for majority of americans - 40 million of whom live below poverty line. Also, the cost of loss of lives, 3100 dead american soldiers so far, is something that will surely never figure into hamidm`s 1% on april 15th. That is something only impoverished americans will have to work out.

author writes ``After the experience with the Iraq war and the cooked-up evidence pertaining to the weapons of mass destruction for which Iraq was invaded, the American public has become wary of the administration`s intentions in the Middle East. It does not have stomach for another war``

Actually American public does have stomach for another war. And another. And another.

Anyone remembers Gulf of Tonkin lie? It was the manufactured incident in 1964 whereby American government lied that its ships were attacked by North Vietnamese and used that incident to escalate genocide of Vietnamese. One would think that that incident which resulted in the deaths of nearly 50,000 Americans until eventual American withdrawal would have made American public wary of their government for the next 100 years. But unfortunately, when the US government decided it wanted to attack Iraq, it successfully fooled American public once again.

So I would say that if the US government some day really decides to attack Iran, it would create ample circumstances and accompanying propaganda such that by the time it actually launches its missiles, majority of Americans would be supporting it.

Lets have a moment of silence for 3100 dead American soldiers. It was the deaths of these soldiers, and not the 650,000 dead Iraqis, that resulted in American public to rethink their government - however temporary this rethinking maybe.

#18

Yep read that as Seymour Hersh :~)

#17 by zeemax

Is that Seymour Hersh or is this guy a different one?

#15 by freethinker

What your friend said is the Samuel Hersh scenario. He`s been saying this since a couple of years based on his inside knowledge of the Bush administration. According to him, the Lebanon attack was a part of the move towards Iran.

However, the plan `A` went wrong on several counts such as Hizbullah could not be destroyed, Iran could not be drawn into the Lebanon war, and Iraq could not be stabilized. So it`s plan `B` in effect now i.e. allegations of Iran supplying explosive materials to Iraqi resistance. Also, another bogeyman in the form of Al-Quds Force has been created alongside Al-Qaida which doesn`t seem to work in case of Shia Iran, therefore a `Shia` Al-Qaida is now born.

You may find Samuel Hersh`s interview from January 2005 interesting.

Political predictions are at best risky. Unlike scientific predictions which are logical, political predictions are many a time devoid of any logic. People making such predictions are influenced by their personal biases and wishful thinking.

A couple of months back, I was at a friend’s house for a social call. As it happens frequently, we were in a political discussion after a few social pleasantries. It started when my friend said without any rhyme or reason that President Bush was going to invade Iran. I thought such an event very unlikely particularly when the people had given a majority to the Democrats (who were clamoring for pulling the troops out of Iraq) both in the House and the Senate (although it’s only nominal). I had said the Democrats wouldn’t approve any such action. We argued for some time and then changed the topic.

This was at the time when George Bush had not yet implicated Iran for her support of the Shiites in Iraq. My friend’s reasoning was simple. He said George Bush would attack Iran and try to annihilate its nuclear capability before leaving the White House.

True enough, Bush came out in the public with his accusation of Iran after only a few days. The possibility of attack on Iran which seemed unlikely at that time is now hovering on the horizon. Howsoever illogical such an action may be, it cannot be ruled out.

In a perceptive article (Guardian Unlimited, February 19, 2007), Gary Younge wrote, “George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality…he stands with a tight band of followers, both deluded and determined, understanding each setback not as a sign to change course but as further proof that they must redouble their efforts to the original goal.

And so we watch the administration’s plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they had to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one.”

So, the unlikely might still actually happen.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 15

Well, may be the war in iraq is NOT a ``setback`` as people claim... as far as Bush is concerned, he taught the bedouins a lesson in general and saddam in particular... he neutralized another potential arab ``strongman`` who could have proved to be a larger threat down the road... sure things didn`t work out entirely as per the plan... but hey, war is messy and un-predictable, right?... I mean - why would sunnis and shias butcher each other like hyenas, instead of working together to build a nation, they are all muslims, right?... Bush rescued the country from iron grips of a mad dictator and handed it over to the people ... it ain`t his fault if iraqis are too dumb to realize the ``gift`` he gave them... :)

Anycase - now iraq is done, more or less.... why not take care of iran?... Iranians are spoiling for a fight anyway... right?... Yet another mideast madman has publicly threatened to wipe israel off the map, right?... so where is the problem?... :)

speaking of iran, pakis are 4 on 4 now...heard the iranians summoned the paki ambassador after the bomb blasts in iran...so now pakiland has spread islamic terrorism to iran, afghanistan, india and china...

#11 by bulleya on February 19, 2007 12:47pm PT


i used to think that in the end, people have to be defeated in the battlefield to be put in their place


Your army lost in Kargil and was put in it`s rightful place as the rulers of Pakiland....

.....one has to be amazed at the actions of george bush.......he just got his balls handed to him in iraq.......and now he is thinking of attacking iran.......i suppose stupidity knows no bounds.......there will always be a % of americans who will support him......i used to think that in the end, people have to be defeated in the battlefield to be put in their place......george bush and his policymakers seem to break that theory.......the usa has been defeated in iraq, but is still looking to attack other countries.......quite amazing!!

.....state terrorism knows no bounds........

.......iran will be a much tougher nut to crack than iraq......it is more than three times the size in terms of population and geography.......it has a standing military, which has fought quite a few battles.........it is a cohesive society with a long history and an elected govt......and most of all it can attack the gulf areas......all iran has to do is to start bombing the entrance to the persian gulf........the price of oil will go up to $100/barrel, and americans will themselves say uncle........in the process, countries like pakistan will be heavily affected as they will have to pay higher prices for oil.......

....i think somewhere along the line, there will be some information discovered which will indicate that bush was lying all along..i.e. he sent in american soldiers and got them killed, knowing fully well there were no wmds in iraq........it will be a huge scandal........

anyways, in this fight, as in iraq and lebanon, i am on the side of the maulvis........i have to say, when it comes to battling superpowers-gone-mad no one does it better than the maulvis.........nasrullah nearly collapsed olmert`s govt.......sadr has collapsed bush`s govt........and i have a feeling the iran maulvis will only collapse it further..........

jazak-allah......

Re: # 11 for a moment there I thought you were beginning to make sense. Then it came in flash....there was something there which your strategic training has missed out.
USA and the west defeated in Iraq? Why becoz youthink they were not able to bring western style democracy there.

No. wrong answer Romair. This is exactly what they wanted. Total chaos. Now the iraqis will be butchering each for a few more generations. The arabs will looking at their navels for a few more generations while the west gets its oil from Kurdistan and the marsh arabs. while the sunnis in the middle get sand in their eyes. Man the west has won. They have got what they wnted, it is the rest who will made to look like a bunch of fools when they will handed a baby which cannot be tamed and is unruly.

.... i, for one, am willing to pay with my tax dollars for regime change in tehran - i would be happy to pay an extra 1% this april 15th if we can get rid of the ayatollahs and other bearded vermin that threaten civilization ......... i am also willing to chip in another 0.5% for more troops in iraq and another 0.5% for regime change in riyadh ......... so what is the total ?... 2% ? ....... that`s it - that is all i am willing to pay for now and i think it is enough to get the job done if the american people have the will to stick with it ........... if we don`t do it now, we will have to do it later

``I was also against the war in yugoslavia too...`` (Arjun2) -- that`s what I mean by `closet commie`.....also too......:) gotcha!......:)

The evacuation of Americans from Iraq, inevitably means the evacuation from the whole middle east - there is no other way around it. If any one thinks that Americans would safely retreat from Iraq, sit in neighboring Gulf countries and control the region through remote control, then he must live in fools paradise. Americans have perpetrated a genocide in Iraq causing the death of three quarter of a million human beings, a lot of sacrifices have been made by the people of Iraq and thinking that they would not come chasing americans down is plain naive.

The powers that be in Us, that is, the invisible power elite know this very well. So the failure of the ``non-binding`` bill on Iraq in the houses with Democart majority is the evidence, who controls this country. This is the gukking oldest trick in the history of parliaments - pass the bill through lower house, and fail it in upper house. This obsolves Democrates of their election promises and give them a fig leaf. Message to their constituents ` Oh we wanted to fulfill our campaign promises but democarcy got in the way``. What lagangaybazi?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#5 by nasah on February 19, 2007 9:07am PT


so you WERE a closet commie


no..you`re the commie...as much as I support the war on the islamofascists in afghanistan, i`ve always been against the iraq war(and the upcoming iran war)...Of course, I was also against the war in yugoslavia too...