Will President Bush Invade Iran?

i believe usa will not attack over iran but it would be fight between iran and israil though iran has beated israil once in labonan but that was just a trailor and now film has to go ..... but usa will not attack only israil ... and usa will help out israil and some other forces but pakistan will be strictly against the war and pakistan will not help out at any case because china will be at pakistan back to push pakistan to go against israil and usa

Bahrain is supposed to have a permanent grouse against Iran and vice versa, because Iran claims that Bahrain actually belongs to them....so it no surprise that Bahrain has something of this nature to say about Iran, every now and again!!

So the gulf states and the arbas are finally breaking the cover and accusing IRAN OF Nuclear lies.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2789 056.ece

Ba hrain accuses Iran of nuclear weapons lie

“While they don’t have the bomb yet, they are developing it, or the capability for it,” he said – the first time one of Iran’s Gulf neighbours effectively has accused it of lying about its nuclear programme. - Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-khalifa

Good write-up. Even this title makes me wonder:

"Will President Bush invade Iran?"

As President and "Commander in Chief", it will be on his final word that the invasion, if at all, will take place.Then people get killed while he sits safely in the White House or some plush private residence. Of course, he will milk the event for what it is worth, making bumbling "patriot" speeches and shaking the hands of grieving widows and parents, while trying not to trip up on his own feet. Sure, those who join the armed forces anywhere know that war and death can suddenly become part of their lives, but when it is for all the wrong reasons, that is a collosal shame.......

Good write-up. Even this title makes me wonder:

"Will President Bush invade Iran?"

As President and "Commander in Chief", it will be on his final word that the invasion, if at all, will take place.Then people get will killed while he sits safely in the White House or some plush private residence. Of course, he will milk the event for what it is worth, making bumbling "patriot" speeches and shaking the hands of grieving widows and parents, while trying not to trip up on his own feet. Sure, those who join the armed forces anywhere know that war and death can suddenly become part of their lives, but when it is for all the wrong reasons, that is a collosal shame.......

must read :

Why Did We Invade Iraq Anyway?
Putting a Country in Your Tank
by Michael Schwartz; TomDispatch; October 31, 2007

Lately, even Democratic candidates for president have been weighing in on why the U.S. must maintain a long-term, powerful military presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, for example, used phrases like protecting our "vital national security interests" and preventing Iraq from becoming a "petri dish for insurgents," in a major policy statement. Barack Obama, in his most important speech on the subject, talked of "maintaining our influence" and allowing "our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda." These arguments, like the constantly migrating justifications for invading Iraq, serially articulated by the Bush administration, manage to be vaguely plausible (with an emphasis on the "vaguely") and also strangely inconsistent (with an emphasis on the "inconsistent").



That these justifications for invading, or remaining, are unsatisfying is hardly surprising, given the reluctance of American politicians to mention the approximately $10-$30 trillion of oil lurking just beneath the surface of the Iraq "debate" -- and not much further beneath the surface of Iraqi soil. Obama, for example, did not mention oil at all in his speech, while Clinton mentioned it twice in passing. President Bush and his top officials and spokespeople have been just as reticent on the subject.



Why then did the U.S. invade Iraq? Why is occupying Iraq so "vital" to those "national security interests" of ours? None of this makes sense if you don't have the patience to drill a little beneath the surface -- and into the past; if you don't take into account that, as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once put it, Iraq "floats on a sea of oil"; and if you don't consider the decades-long U.S. campaign to control, in some fashion, Middle East energy reservoirs. If not, then you can't understand the incredible tenaciousness with which George W. Bush and his top officials have pursued their Iraqi dreams or why -- now that those dreams are clearly so many nightmares -- even the Democrats can't give up the ghost.



The Rise of OPEC



The United States viewed Middle Eastern oil as a precious prize long before the Iraq war. During World War II, that interest had already sprung to life: When British officials declared Middle Eastern oil "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination," American officials agreed, calling it "a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."



This led to a scramble for access during which the United States established itself as the preeminent power of the future. Crucially, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt successfully negotiated an "oil for protection" agreement with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. That was 1945. From then on, the U.S. found itself actively (if often secretly) engaged in the region. American agents were deeply involved in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 (to reverse the nationalization of Iran's oil fields), as well as in the fateful establishment of a Baathist Party dictatorship in Iraq in the early 1960s (to prevent the ascendancy of leftists who, it was feared, would align the country with the Soviet Union, putting the country's oil in hock to the Soviet bloc).



U.S. influence in the Middle East began to wane in the 1970s, when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was first formed to coordinate the production and pricing of oil on a worldwide basis. OPEC's power was consolidated as various countries created their own oil companies, nationalized their oil holdings, and wrested decision-making away from the "Seven Sisters," the Western oil giants -- among them Shell, Texaco, and Standard Oil of New Jersey -- that had previously dominated exploration, extraction, and sales of black gold.



With all the key oil exporters on board, OPEC began deciding just how much oil would be extracted and sold onto international markets. Once the group established that all members would follow collective decisions -- because even a single major dissenter might fatally undermine the ability to turn the energy "spigot" on or off -- it could use the threat of production restrictions, or the promise of expansion, to bargain with its most powerful trading partners. In effect, a new power bloc had emerged on the international scene that could -- in some circumstances -- exact tangible concessions even from the United States and the Soviet Union, the two superpowers of the time.



Though the United States was largely self-sufficient in oil when OPEC was first formed, the American economy was still dependent on trading partners, particularly Japan and Europe, which themselves were dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The oil crises of the early 1970s, including the sometimes endless gas lines in the U.S., demonstrated OPEC's potential.



It was in this context that the American alliance with the Saudi royal family first became so crucial. With the largest petroleum reserves on the planet and the largest production capacity among OPEC members, Saudi Arabia was usually able to shape the cartel's policies to conform to its wishes. In response to this simple but essential fact, successive American presidents strengthened the Rooseveltian alliance, deepening economic and military relationships between the two countries. The Saudis, in turn, could normally be depended upon to use their leverage within OPEC to fit the group's actions into the broader aims of U.S. policy. In other words, Washington gained favorable OPEC policies mainly by arming, and propping up a Saudi regime that was chronically fragile.



Backed by a tiny elite that used immense oil revenues to service its own narrow interests, the Saudi royals subjected their impoverished population to an oppressively authoritarian regime. Not surprisingly, then, the "alliance" required increasing infusions of American military aid as well political support in situations that were often uncomfortable, sometimes untenable, for Washington. On its part, in an era of growing nationalism, the Saudis found overt pro-American policies difficult to sustain, given the pressures and proclivities of its OPEC partners and its own population.



The Neocons Seize the Unipolar Moment



The key year in the Middle East would be 1979, when Iranians, who had lost their government to an American and British inspired coup in 1953, poured into the streets. The American-backed Shah's brutal regime fell to a popular revolution; American diplomats were taken hostage by Iranian student demonstrators; and Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs took power. The Iranian revolution added a combustible new element to an already complex and unstable equation. It was, in a sense, the match lit near the pipeline. A regime hostile to Washington, and not particularly amenable to Saudi pressure, had now become an active member of OPEC, aspiring to use the organization to challenge American economic hegemony.



It was at this moment, not surprisingly, that the militarization of American Middle Eastern policy came out of the shadows. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter -- before his Habitat for Humanity days -- enunciated what would become known as the "Carter Doctrine": that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests and that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it. To assure that "access," he announced the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, a new military command structure that would be able to deliver personnel from all the armed services, together with state-of-the-art military equipment, to any location in the Middle East at top speed.



Nurtured and expanded by succeeding presidents, this evolved into the United States Central Command (Centcom), which ended up in charge of all U.S. military activity in the Middle East and surrounding regions. It would prove the military foundation for the Gulf War of 1990, which rolled back Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait, and therefore prevented him from gaining control of that country's oil reserves. Though it was not emphasized at the time, that first Gulf War was a crystalline application of the Carter Doctrine -- that "any means necessary, including military force," should be used to guarantee American access to Middle Eastern oil. That war, in turn, convinced a shaky Saudi royal family -- that saw Iraqi troops reach its border -- to accept an ongoing American military presence within the country, a development meant to facilitate future applications of the Carter Doctrine, but which would have devastating unintended consequences.



The peaceful disintegration of the Soviet Union at almost the same moment seemed to signal that Washington now had uncontested global military supremacy, triggering a debate within American policy circles about how to utilize and preserve what Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer first called the "unipolar moment." Future members of the administration of Bush the younger were especially fierce advocates for making aggressive use of this military superiority to enhance U.S. power everywhere, but especially in the Middle East. They eventually formed a policy advocacy group, The Project for a New American Century, to develop, and lobby for, their views. The group, whose membership included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and dozens of other key individuals who would hold important positions in the executive branch after George W. Bush took office, wrote an open letter to President Clinton in 1998 urging him to turn his "administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power." They cited both the Iraqi dictator's military belligerence and his control over "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil."



Two years later, the group issued a ringing policy statement that would be the guiding text for the new administration. Entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, it advocated what would become known as a Rumsfeldian-style transformation of the Pentagon. U.S. military preeminence was to be utilized to "secure and expand' American influence globally and possibly, in the cases of North Korea and Iraq, used "to remove these regimes from power and conduct post-combat stability operations." (The document even commented on the problem of defusing American domestic resistance to such an aggressive stance, noting ominously that public approval could not be obtained without "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")



Saddam's Iraq and Oil on the Brain



The second Bush administration ascended to the presidency just as American influence in the Middle East looked to be on the decline. Despite victory in the first Gulf War and the fall of the Soviet Union, American influence over OPEC and oil policies seemed under threat. That sucking sound everyone suddenly heard was a tremendous increase in the global demand for oil. With fears rising that, in the very near future, such demand could put a strain on OPEC's resources, member states began negotiating ever more vigorously for a range of concessions and expanded political power in exchange for expanded energy production. By this time, of course, the United States had joined the ranks of the energy deficient and dependent, as imported oil surged past the 50% mark.



In the meantime, key ally Saudi Arabia was further weakened by the rise of al-Qaeda, which took as its main goal the overthrow of the royal family, and its key target -- think of those unintended consequences -- the American troops triumphantly stationed at permanent bases in the country after Gulf War I. They seemed to confirm the accusations of Osama bin Laden and other Saudi dissidents that the royal family had indeed become little but a tool of American imperialism. This, in turn, made the Saudi royals increasingly reluctant hosts for those troops and ever more hesitant supporters of pro-American policies within OPEC.



The situation was complicated further by what was obvious to any observer: The potential future leverage that both Iraq and Iran might wield in OPEC. With the second and third largest oil reserves on the planet -- Iran also had the second largest reserves of natural gas -- their influence seemed bound to rise. Iraq's, in particular, would be amplified substantially as soon as Saddam Hussein's regime was freed from severe limitations imposed by post-war UN sanctions, which prevented it from either developing new oil fields or upgrading its deteriorating energy infrastructure. Though the leaders of the two countries were enemies, having fought a bitter war in the 1980s, they could agree, at least, on energy policies aimed at thwarting American desires or demands -- a position only strengthened in 1998 when the citizens of Venezuela, the most important OPEC member outside the Middle East, elected the decidedly anti-American Hugo Chavez as president. In other words, in January 2001, the new administration in Washington could look forward to negotiating oil policy not only with a reluctant Saudi royal family, but also a coterie of hostile powers in a strengthened OPEC.



It is hardly surprising, then, that the new administration, bent on unipolarity anyway and dreaming of a global Pax Americana, wasted no time implementing the aggressive policies advocated in the PNAC manifesto. According to then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill in his memoir The Price of Loyalty, Iraq was much on the mind of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the first meeting of the National Security Council on January 30, 2001, seven months before the 9/11 attacks. At that meeting, Rumsfeld argued that the Clinton administration's Middle Eastern focus on Israel-Palestine should be unceremoniously dumped. "[W]hat we really want to think about," he reportedly said, "is going after Saddam." Regime change in Iraq, he argued, would allow the U.S. to enhance the situation of the pro-American Kurds, redirect Iraq toward a market economy, and guarantee a favorable oil policy.



The adjudication of Rumsfeld's recommendation was shuffled off to the mysterious National Energy Policy Development Group that Vice President Cheney convened as soon as Bush took occupancy of the Oval Office. This task force quickly decided that enhanced American influence over the production and sale of Middle East oil should be "a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," relegating both the development of alternative energy sources and domestic energy conservation measures to secondary, or even tertiary, status. A central goal of the administration's Middle East focus would be to convince, or coerce, states in that region "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment"; that is, to replace government control of the oil spigot -- the linchpin of OPEC power -- with decision-making by multinational oil companies headquartered in the West and responsive to U.S. policy needs. If such a program could be extended even to a substantial minority of Middle Eastern oil fields, it would prevent coordinated decision-making and constrain, if not break, the power of OPEC. This was a theoretically enticing way to staunch the loss of American power in the region and truly turn the Bush years into a new unipolar moment in the Middle East.



Having determined its goals, the Task Force began laying out a more detailed strategy. According to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, the most significant innovation was to be a close collaboration between Cheney's energy crew and the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC evidently agreed "to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the 'melding' of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: 'the review of operational policies towards rogue states,' such as Iraq, and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.'"



Though all these deliberations were secret, enough of what was going on has emerged in these last years to demonstrate that the "melding" process was successful. By March of 2001, according to O'Neill, who was a member of both the NSC and the task force:



"Actual plans.... were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it -- complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals -- carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war."



O'Neill also reported that, by the time of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the plan for conquering Iraq had been developed and that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld indeed urged just such an attack at the first National Security Council meeting convened to discuss how the U.S. should react to the disaster. After several days of discussion, an attack on Iraq was postponed until after al-Qaeda had been wiped out and the Taliban driven from power in Afghanistan. It took only until January 2002 -- three months of largely successful fighting in Afghanistan -- before the "administration focus was returning to Iraq." It wasn't until November 2002, though, that O'Neill heard the President himself endorse the invasion plans, which took place the following March 20th.



The Logic of Regime Change



With this background, it's easier to understand the recent brief, but highly significant, flurry of controversy over a single sentence in The Age of Turbulence, the bestselling, over-500-page memoir by longtime Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He wrote simply, as if this were utterly self-evident: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." As the first major government official to make such a statement, he was asked repeatedly to explain his thinking, particularly since his comment was immediately repudiated by various government officials, including White House spokesman Tony Fratto, who labeled it "Georgetown cocktail party analysis."



His subsequent comments elaborated on a brief explanation in the memoir: "It should be obvious that as long as the United States is beholden to potentially unfriendly sources of oil and gas, we are vulnerable to economic crises over which we have little control." Since former ally Saddam Hussein was, by then, unremittingly unfriendly, Greenspan felt that (as he told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward) "taking Saddam out was essential" in order to make "certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work." In an interview at Democracy Now! he elaborated on this point, explaining that his support for ousting Hussein had "nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction," but rather with the economic "threat he could create to the rest of the world" through his control over key oil reserves in the Persian Gulf region.



Greenspan's argument echoes the logic expressed by the Project for a New American Century and other advocates of aggressive military solutions to the threat of OPEC power. He was concerned that Saddam Hussein, once an ally, but by then a sworn enemy of U.S. interests in the Middle East, would control key oil flows. That, in turn, might allow him to exercise economic, and so political, leverage over the United States and its allies.



The former Fed chief then elaborated further, arguing that the threat of Saddam could be eliminated "by one means or another" -- either by "getting him out of office or getting him out of the control position he was in." Replacing Saddam with a friendly, pro-American government seemed, of course, like such a no-brainer. Why have a guy like that in a "control position" over oil, after all? (And think of the possibility of taking those embarrassing troops out of Saudi Arabia and stationing them at large permanent bases in nearby, well-situated, oil-rich Iraq.) Better by far, as the Cheney Energy Task put it, "to open up areas of [Iraq's] energy sectors to foreign investment." Like the Task Force members, Greenspan believed that removing oil -- not just from Saddam's control, but from the control of any Iraqi government -- would permanently remove the threat that it or a broken OPEC could continue to wield economic leverage over the United States.



Revealingly enough, Greenspan saw the invasion of Iraq as a generically conservative action -- a return, if anything, to the status quo ante that would preserve unencumbered American access to sufficient Middle Eastern oil. With whole new energy-devouring economies coming on line in Asia, continued American access seemed to require stripping key Middle Eastern nations of the economic and political power that scarcity had already begun to confer. In other words, Greenspan's conservative urge implied exactly the revolutionary changes in the political and economic equation that the Bush administration would begin to test out so disastrously in Iraq in March 2003. It's also worth remembering that Iraq was only considered a first pit stop, an easy mark for invasion and occupation. PNAC-nurtured eyes were already turning to Iran by then as indicated by the classic prewar neocon quip, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."



And beyond this set of radical changes in the Middle East lay another set for the rest of the world. In the twenty-first century, expanding energy demand will, sooner or later (probably sooner), outdistance production. The goal of unfettered American access to sufficient Middle Eastern oil would, if achieved and sustained, deprive other countries of sufficient oil, or require them to satisfy U.S. demands in order to access it. In other words, Greenspan's conservative effort to preserve American access implied a dramatic increase in American leverage over all countries that depended on oil for their economic welfare; that is, a radical transformation of the global balance of power.



Notice that these ambitions, and the actions taken to implement them, rested on a vision of an imperial America that should, could, and would play a uniquely dominant, problem-solving role in world affairs. All other countries would, of course, continue to be "vulnerable to economic crises" over which they would have "little control." Only the United States had the essential right to threaten, or simply apply, overwhelming military power to the "problem" of energy; only it had the right to subdue any country that attempted to create -- or exploit -- an energy crisis, or that simply had the potential and animus to do so.



None of this was lost on the unipolar-minded officials who made the decision to invade Iraq -- and were more ready than any previous administration to spell out, shock-and-awe style, a new stronger version of the Carter Doctrine for the planet. According to Treasury Secretary O'Neill, Rumsfeld offered a vision of the grandiosity of these goals at the first Bush administration National Security Council meeting:



"Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond."



An even more grandiose vision was offered to the New York Times by presidential speech writer David Frum a few days later:



"An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States, would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans."



As worldwide demand for hydrocarbons soared, the United States was left with three policy choices: It could try to combine alternative energy sources with rigorous conservation to reduce or eliminate a significant portion of energy imports; it could accept the leverage conferred on OPEC by the energy crunch and attempt to negotiate for an adequate share of what might soon enough become an inadequate supply; or it could use its military power in an effort to coerce Middle East suppliers into satisfying American requirements at the expense of everyone else. Beginning with Jimmy Carter, five U.S. presidents chose the coercive strategy, with George W. Bush finally deciding that violent, preemptive regime change was needed to make it work. The other options remain unexplored.



[Note: This commentary -- and most of the useful work on the role of oil in Middle East and world politics -- rests on the remarkable evidential and analytic foundation provided by Michael Klare's indispensable book, Blood and Oil,The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Readers who seek a full understanding of these issues should start with that text.]





Michael Schwartz, Professor of Sociology and Founding Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University, has written extensively on popular protest and insurgency, and on American business and government dynamics. His books include Radical Protest and Social Structure and Social Policy and The Conservative Agenda (edited, with Clarence Lo). His work on Iraq has appeared on numerous Internet sites, including Tomdispatch, Asia Times, Mother Jones, and ZNET; and in print in Cities, Contexts, Against the Current, and Z Magazine. His email address is Ms42@optonline.net.



[This article first appeared on Tomdispatch.com, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news, and opinion from Tom Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), which has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.]

http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/alternatescenarios.html

zee

if you enjoy poking your nose into toilet habits of other people, go ahead... :)

abizaid it must be i just remember it was the guy incharge of iraq; but i do remember shinseki being snubbed by rumsfield and later the US military said they had no idea how rummy came up with the 150K number, they believe the chutya just pulled it out of thin air

#179 Posted by borivili_express on November 1, 2007 9:26:11


Gen tommy franks is on record saying that they calive with a nuclear iran from a military persepcetive.


That's Abizaid, not franks.

mohar11,

Pretty disgusting:

http://phoenixinsurgent.blogspot.com/2006/07/living-in-shit-excer pt-from-mike-davis.htmlThursday,

July 06, 2006

Living in Shit (an excerpt from Mike Davis' Planet of Slums)
http://www.dka.at/materialien/fotos/projekte/Bilder/Phil-Slum-Kanal_jpg. jpg

India - where an estimated 700 million people are forced to defecate in the open - only 17 of 3700 cities and large towns have any kind of primary sewage treatment before finaly disposal. A study of 22 slums in India found 9 with no latrine facilities at all; in another 10, there were just 19 latrines for 102,000 people. The filmaker Prahlad Kakkar, the auteur of the toilet documentary Bumbay, told a startled interviewer that in Bombay "half the population doesn't have a toilet to shit in, so they shit outside That's five million people. If they shit half a kilo each, that's two and a half million kilos of shit each morning." Similarly, "a 1990 survey of Delhi," reports Susan Chaplin, "showed that the 480,000 families in 1100 slum settlements had access to only 160 toilet seats and 110 mobile toilet vans. The lack of toilet facilities in slum areas has forced slum dwellers to use any open space, such as public parks, and thus has created tensions between them and middle class residents over defecation rights." Indeed, Arundhati Roy tells of three Delhi slum-dwellers who in 1998 were "shot for shitting in public places."


In the slums of Bangalore - the high-tech poster city for "India Shining" - poor women, unable to afford the local pay latrines, must wait until evening to wash or relieve themselves. Researcher Loes Schenk-Sandbergen writes:

Men can urinate at any time at any place, whereas women can only ben seen following the call of nature before sunrise and after unsset. To avoid hazards, women have to go in groups at five o'clock in the morning... often [to] marshy land where snakes would be hiding, or some deserted dumping ground with rats and other rodents. Women often say that they do not eat during the daytime just to avoid having to go to the open field in the evening.

Similarly, in Bombay women have to relieve themselves "between two and five each morning, because it's the only time they get privacy." The public toilets, explains the writer Suketu Mehta, are rarely a solution for women because they seldom function: "People defecate all around the toilets, because the pits have been clogged for months or years."

boriviliexpress: Bush is a lame-duck President with a little over an year left in office, is widely considered to be about the worst President the US has had in over two centuries, has popularity ratings in the US that are as low as Musharraf has in Pakistan. He is in the stuck in two wars that should have been over years ago.

So, there is no reason to be so certain that he will start a third war. But then...I have learnt never to underestimate the level of incompetence of the Bush government.

can live with

Gen tommy franks is on record saying that they calive with a nuclear iran from a military persepcetive.


Knowing how rumsfield ignored the military'a advice for 500K troops for Iraq and publicly snubbed the chief of the army Gen Shinseki I am sure the bush admin will ignore the military's advice again and just like 1 M iraqis another M iranis will die

NYtimes reports that today a paki airforce bus was blown up by jihadis and Mushy is seriously going for emergency rule... BB has high-tailed out of pakiland, once again...

And here we have pakis sniffing around railroad tracks in search for shYte to throw on arjun mian... :)

hamid mian

if I were you - I would be more concerned about swat - looks like paki military is increasingly surrendering areas to ragtag taliban... I am not sure if that's by intention... either way, zeemax buddies are winning all over...

Indian toilet habits should be least of your concern at this point...

#175 Posted by bubba on October 31, 2007 7:01:40 pm

it seems like inbred retards don't get that the vast majority of indians of all religions are against the iraq war and will be against a war with iran.

It seems that horrible hindus on this site just don't get it. More Indian muslims are closer to Iran that Pakistani muslims.

#172 Posted by hamidm2 on October 31, 2007 3:44:41 pm

I have good news for you too..turns out, mirchi is actually good for pain..so when your ass gets blown up by the jihadis or the paki army, the mirchi that india's success and your failure has put on your rear will actually numb the pain quite well..

WASHINGTON - Devil's Revenge. Spontaneous Combustion. Hot sauces have names like those for a reason. Now scientists are testing whether the stuff that makes the sauces so savage can tame the pain of surgery.

Doctors are dripping capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their fire, directly into open wounds during some highly painful operations.


Hot spice used to cool pain
Chemical from chili peppers is being tested on surgical wounds

Arjun VI: Dont let hamidm take you off-track (Romair to note masterful use of the double entendre). If God meant man to have toilets, he would not have created railway tracks!!

arjun,

... before you start beating your chest and start crowing about how great the unwashed hindoo masses are doing, i would like to give you little a reality check:

A World Toilet Summit has opened in the Indian capital, Delhi, with more than 40 countries taking part.

In India alone, more than 700 million people have no access to toilets which have proper waste disposal systems.

Early morning, many Indian villagers head to the nearest railway track and squat by its side relieving themselves.


....... as far as i know, most iranians have indoor toilets ........i don't mean to offend you, but j2ee will only get you so far .......

OK Masadi you say I am being insensitive to the potential death of incocents including children by talking about the coming conflict then you tell me when you and I cant stop the hindus from murdering and raping muslims in Gujarat and Kashmir, when we cant stop the MQM or the Jihadis in NWFP how can we stop the US and Iran or their elites from going to war?

and if you cant then why jump up and down?

detailed interviews with the rapists, mutilators and killers themselves, role of police, VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal, BJP and Modi himself

Forget this Tehelka magazine one of India's leading has uncovered in detail the Planning and exectuion of the Muslim Genocide/Pogrom in Gujarat here is the link : http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107gujrat_sec.asp

Modi and the police colluded with RSS and bajrang dal and VHp in a systematic manner with the police and administration read it yourself

Has anyone brought up the fact that iran imports gasoline?


The oil-rich country pays billions to import gasoline.

Because Iran's refineries can pump out only 10 1/2 million gallons of gasoline a day, and Iranian motorists burn 17 million gallons, the gap is filled by gasoline purchased at full price from other countries.

The RSS name changer borivili writes "Masadi you would be laughed out of any half intelligent company, your omnipotent and ubiquitous US Elites werent able to prevent the overthrow of their fav client the shah, they werent able to depose Chavez or castro the leaders of tiny states in the US backyard"

For everything you say (and claim) they weren't able to do, there are 10 that they were able to achieve, as their position in global affairs shows. Nobody says they are omnipotent but since they dominate vantage points of global institutions they are in positions to achieve more in their favor and in the favor of their hegemeony than any other group of tightly knit social types.

Regarding the Shah, have u ever considered why the Iranian military stood down, and let the revolution proceed, the US elite with Britain made the shah and they broke him as well, then had the mullahs eliminate the entire left in Iran. Regarding Chavez and Castro they are like mosquitos, one kept the farce of the cold war in public consciousness alive to the benefit of the US elite, they could have taken him out with much more ease than Saddam but deliberately did not. A militaristic economy thrives of keeping enemies alive in areas of strategic importance, that is how they get to rob the people more effectively. But before you are in a position to comprehend these things why dont you give up the farce, i.e. of you being an Indian Muslim when u are a RSS type, out to dishonor Islam by your deceit. You wil fail just as the US elite will fail eventually, you want to present them as being impotent so as to legitimize their rape of the world, I will not let that happen, not here not anywhere....now keep on barking...

Re: # 165 He is running for cover, seeing that there is a lot of misguided howitzer fire

Where is my friend HP, he hasn't posted here for a long time...can someone find out?

zee

A guy with a sword scares off paki military?...

Aa tujh ko bataoon mein tadbeer-e-umum kya hai,
Shamsheer-sana awwal, taoos-o-rabab aakhir.

(Allama Iqbal)

I saw this beautiful footage of Swat on Dawn TV today. A group of Mujahideen had set up a check-point and the leader was armed with ... what else ... a sword !!!

Aslam,

Thanx. Tar sands, right?

Regards

Re: # 148

Iran is in the hands of Ayotollahs and would stab the idolators if they gain in power.

Re: # 158
majumdar
I believe it’s oil sands, the report I read is that it’s quite economical to extract oil from it, since prices are so high plus new technology will be even more efficient, that should lower the extraction costs even more. The oil companies face other obstacles, environment groups and inhospitable climate.

Aslam,

I presume the Canuck oil would be in the form of shale, which is much more expensive to mine and process than the normal crude. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Regards

According to yesterday’s guardian, canucks have six times as much oil as Saudi Arabia. They will be drowning in the stuff soon, their fort mcmurry is experiencing such a boom the like of which the world’s not seen, it’s attracted workers from over seventy countries, from Romanian prostitutes to Punjabi child minders, some of the workers are earning thousand dollars a day. As the prophesy says for those that have shall have more.

Borivilli Express,

There is no such thing as "friendship" among nations - except the general concept of amity among all nations.

Other than that, there are only national self-interests. The leaders of the country put those before anything else.

Pakistan has been an aberration in many ways because most of its leaders have not been true representatives of its people. Unfortunately, you guys stumbled right in the beginning - when the basic poison - the idea of being "separate" was injected into your mindset and through the efforts of Mr. Jinnah, it was ensured that you guys shall forever live in your own coccoon and not be open to the ideas of plurality accepted the world over.

What you guys need (desparately) is to discard that failed mindset rather than keeping on tinkering with it and looking for new "hakims"!

Borivilli mian

(Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad )

Zeemax sahib will agree with that. And your Lal Masjid is like today's Karbala as per people like him. Take care!!!

Regards

Borivilli mian,

If NWFP people are sovereign why are the Paki gunships bombing them?

(But not a single Hindu has been able to explain their betrayel of Iran)

Why dont you explain your betrayal of the Taliban

( when they espoused the same principle as india had been screaming for 60 years)

Talibs have been espousing the same principle as you guys for 1400 years

(and after Iran had been a friend all these years)

And Talib types have actually been fighting for you, in 1947 and 1999 for eg.

Regards

Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad

Once a Bania always a Bania, never trust a Kafir, these are the new watch words in Iran

#150 by borivili_express

They are soverign, ask your friend Zeemax, why dont you start by giving the kashmiris the same level of sovereignty? ,)

If that is the case, is the Paki Army there on a picnic?

They are soverign, ask your friend Zeemax, why dont you start by giving the kashmiris the same level of sovereignty? ,)

#146 by borivili_express

That terrirtory was never Kashmiri since no kashmiri lived there, it was just a line drawn in no man's land by the british, do you follow?

Oh so now we're into technicalities? But even here, you're wrong. Kashmiri maps since the late 1800s have always shown Aksai Chin (the part gifted away) as part of Kashmir.

But not a single Hindu has been able to explain their betrayel of Iran, when they espoused the same principle as india had been screaming for 60 years and after Iran had been a friend all these years, when even the Chinese abstained India voted against the Iranians and in favour of the US

Well, Swat and Waziristan are not Pakistan either. They are Pushtoon homelands over which Durand arbit drew a line. Why don't you first give those guys independence and show us beghairat kaffiroons a lesson in freedom.

Regards

That terrirtory was never Kashmiri since no kashmiri lived there, it was just a line drawn in no man's land by the british, do you follow?

Borivilli mian,

(Kasmiris are pakis )

Fortunately for them they ain't. Else they would have been smothered by Helicopter gunships and/or White Phosphorus.

Regards

Masadi you would have made a great character in a Sultan Rahi movie, even Maula Jatt would have seemed like a strategist compared to you. I loved your "theory of the US elections and mass media"

Kasmiris are pakis

#139 by borivili_express

....so it was the best deal we could have struck.

Yaar Borivili, how much more unprincipled can you get? The territory Pakistan gleefully signed away to China was Kashmiri, not Paki. You guys shed rivers of tears for Kashmiris and never tire of harping on how they should be involved in any talks to discuss the Kashmir issue, yet you didn't so much as bat an eyelid when you gave it away?

Majumdar it isnt very different from what you would do to me after you are made King of the World, good luck to you and him.

Hindus you cant avoid the main point you sold out Iran your old friend when it stood for the same principal you had held up the world as your religion u two faced liars

Dear Harish we couldnt even mine those mountains for uranium like the desert, leave aside that reaching them was potentially fatal, not a soul livid on them and they got us Chinese help and insured our future through nukliar help against an unprincipled and violent bully, also got us cheap mass weaponry and manufactering capacity in the worst days of the sanctions so it was the best deal we could have struck. The chinese also used it only to build a road joining two deserts so it was only tangentialy useful to them and was useful to us only AFTER they were gifted ,)

Borivilli mian

(few thousand pathans wont be able to take over Pakistan.)

For once you may actually be right, Congrats!!! But they can keep the kanjaroon Pak Army occupied, which is what us beghairat kaffiroons would more or less settle for.

But if by any chance the havayoon win, you know what Zeemax sahib is going to do to all those who justify the white phosphorus business in LM-JH.

Regards

And it doesnt matter how much zeemax jumps in his burgundy, a few thousand pathans wont be able to take over Pakistan. the only way islam can come to power is through a coup within the army

masadi rona mat varna US elite aajayega

Masadi you would be laughed out of any half intelligent company, your omnipotent and ubiquitous US Elites werent able to prevent the overthrow of their fav client the shah, they werent able to depose Chavez or castro the leaders of tiny states in the US backyard, they couldnt prevent the communist victory in China, north Korea or vietnam. Couldnt prevent cole, tanzania or sept 11, couldnt quiten Iraq, NWFP or afghanistan

what kind of ogre is this that your mom scared you with as a child

#125 by borivili_express

The part given to the chinese was useful for them and utterly useles and inaccesible for pakistan and most importantly of all it was vital for pakistan's survival against a much larger and hostile bully, understand?

Going by Borivili mian's logic, maybe India and Pakistan should give away their portions of the Thar Desert to the US (or just about anyone willing to be the sugardaddy), because not a blade of grass grows there...LOL!

Besides it was Kashmiri territory, not Paki, wasn't it?

borivili writes "The part given to the chinese was useful for them and utterly useles and inaccesible for pakistan..."

Let us take your word for it even though you have no clue about the issue. Just because a piece of national territory is unnecessary and inaccessible we cannot say "take it" to another nation, national sovereignity is not maintained in this manner. This was a simple case of scoring brownie points with a much bigger more powerful neighbour that was on bad terms with the enemy. WE shouldn't expect any better from you though, you learn your global geopolitics from the back side of a cereal box, so you wouldn't know any better...

borivili writes "masadi u are a fool, big money means fuel for relection and hence the prominence of big business of the jewish, oil, or any other kind but all the profit in the world can not get one relected if public sentiment "

I'm not the fool, you are the idiot. You have no clue about how elections and campaigns are run in the US, everything is predetermined, including public prepping via the media, which candidates will compete, which will receive financing (where the profits kick in big time), and who will finance them (big oil men or some ass fart Israeli lobby group), and finally what the big distractions will be to distract the public away from bread and butter issues, not to mention the machine rigging of elections...a two party state is not very different from a one party dictatorship, whoever is chosen does elite agenda, there is very little difference between the broad agendas of the republicans and democrats, the elite sponsor both so if one is rejected the other follows a near similar foerign and domestic policy. If there were differences we would have universal health care and no US military bases overseas. Idiots like you look at the surface BS, manufactured by the media and conclude that the public is all important in US affairs, at the national and international level US public does not matter to this elite at all...

Zeemax,

Oops, sorry about 130 it was posted b4 I read #129.

Regards

Zeemax sahib,

Good morning. Do read my Post # 121 and what Borivilli mian writes in #118.

Regards

majumdar,

Zeemax sahib,Kindly note that Borivilli mian writes in # 118 "The mominas were into illegal occupation and dictat enforcement along with their buddies." Please bring this to the notice of Messrs Mehsud and Fazlu and make sure that proper Islamic justice is served to this gentleman when they establish Nizam-e-Mustafa in Pakistan.

If the Jamia Hafsa was illegal occupation, so is the entire Swat valley. I think borivilli saheb has not noticed the slogan of 'Shariat ya Shahadat' on the mominas' headbands was the same as on the TNSM motif painted outside Swat mosques now.

And justice will be dispensed, no doubt, and it will be swift and final.

#66 Posted by tahmed32

zeemax: i thought buxom was an adjective, not a noun.

tahmed32, grammar is the least of my concerns when confronted with matters 'buxom'.

Borivilli mian,

(Now first you partitioned the country)

If I am not mistaken it was MAJ (pbuh) and AIML which called for Partition of India.

(then you played a double game in kashmir while another in hyderabad and junagad)

This double game incidentally was started by MAJ (pbuh). Indians were more than happy to give up Kashmir to Pak if they would give up Hyd and Junagadh but MAJ wanted both and got none. I know you will not believe me but you can check up on articles in The Hindu by Mr. AG Noorani, a Momin and a big time MAJ fan (almost as big time fan of MAJ as YLH or myself).

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1712/17120730.htm

http://www.hi nduonnet.com/fline/fl1805/18050750.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1924 /stories/20021206001107400.htm

(then you schemed in East pakistan)

I dont get it. Mujib won a majority in Pak, your great general Yahya and ZAB responded by starting a genocide there and we did the scheming.

Regards

Borivilli mian,

(Beyghairaton abh bhi kuch sharam karo abh bhi waqt hai)

Sharm for what: Spryaing our school kids with WP or for strafing villagers with helicopter gunships.

(u did what shakuni of the mahabharata would be proud of)

It may interest you that Shakuni came from Gandhara, which is bascially parts of West Punjab and NWFP. One of Shakuni's kids may have been your grandpa Gopinath.

(only communists have any honor )

Commies of course do not believe in the existence of Allah.

Again, Zeemax sahib take note this gentleman is attributing honour to Godless people.

Regards

The part given to the chinese was useful for them and utterly useles and inaccesible for pakistan and most importantly of all it was vital for pakistan's survival against a much larger and hostile bully, understand?

harish arguing with u is pointless zia in the afghan jihad was betraying no friends get it or not? very diff from India's betrayel of iran, nor was he betraying long held and loudly proclaimed beliefs. Comprendi??? ditto for Kashmiris.

Now first you partitioned the country, then you played a double game in kashmir while another in hyderabad and junagad, then you schemed in East pakistan and now you will make your little profit while a brave and small country is bombed for the same principles you loudly proclaimed.

you have already btrayed it twice while it stood by you in the UN for decades atleast dont make your commision on the side you nation of banias and bribetakers

And for all your so called concern for the Kashmiris, how come you gave away a part of it to the Chinese without so much as batting an eyelid?

#118 by borivili_express

pakistan didnt do it only for the crumbs...

Umm..OK, Borivili yaar, you mean it is OK to betray friends if you're faced with an existential threat? Nice convenient argument you chose for yourself.

Bhai, Pakistan has been doing it for the crumbs right from the very beginning. If you chronicle Pakistan's alliances, almost everyone of them has been for the moolah and Pakis don't even pretend it is otherwise. Do you remember Zia-ul-Haq's famous complaint that the aid the US offered was peanuts?

#119 by borivili_express

Even in the case of JKLf it was a change in pakistani perception not a case of we will sell our bodies and souls for a litle silver not even gold.

Again, nice excuse but won't wash. For all the tears you shed for Kashmiris, you were pretty quick when it came to dumping the JKLF without a second thought, weren't you?

Zeemax sahib,

Kindly note that Borivilli mian writes in # 118 "The mominas were into illegal occupation and dictat enforcement along with their buddies."

Please bring this to the notice of Messrs Mehsud and Fazlu and make sure that proper Islamic justice is served to this gentleman when they establish Nizam-e-Mustafa in Pakistan.

Regards

Beyghairaton abh bhi kuch sharam karo abh bhi waqt hai

Even in the case of JKLf it was a change in pakistani perception not a case of we will sell our bodies and souls for a litle silver not even gold.

U betrayed a sovereign country an old friend and went against what you had been screaming for 60 years as principles which u justified for your own pursuit of nukes. That is why I say Nehru, Indira and the rest of you hindus are such wily scheemers only communists have any honor

The mominas were into illegal occupation and dictat enforcement along with their buddies.

As regards the Taliban and pakistan then Pakistan was faced with the question of a with us or agaisnt us choice, pakistan didnt do it only for the crumbs very different from India's case where there was no existential threat, u did what shakuni of the mahabharata would be proud of

#116 by majumdar

And I'm sure the JKLF - the once much pampered Kashmiri terrorist outfit - must have felt the same way when Pakistan discovered much to its horror that it advocated independence instead of merger with Pakistan.

Borivilli mian,

(I am sure the Iranians must have thought "Et Tu Brutus" after half a century of friendship and telling the world that posesing nuclear weapons was the soveriegn right of a nation they stabbed Iran in the full senate not once but twice what glorious bastards )

And what were the Mominas thinking when they were being sprayed with White Phosphorus?

Regards

Sorry #114 is in response to #111 and not #112.

#112 by borivili_express

The Mahabharat teaches hindus treachery and backstabbing for a few crumbs from the US they proved themselves and hypocrites and even back stabbed their old friends.

And which scripture (I hope it's not the Koran) of yours teach you to abandon your bosom buddies the Taliban after just one phone call from Colin Powell?

I am sure the Iranians must have thought "Et Tu Brutus" after half a century of friendship and telling the world that posesing nuclear weapons was the soveriegn right of a nation they stabbed Iran in the full senate not once but twice what glorious bastards

Borivilli mian,

(The Mahabharat teaches hindus treachery and backstabbing for a few crumbs from the US they proved themselves and hypocrites and even back stabbed their old friends. )

And from which Book did your beloved leader Gen. Mush learn to spray good Mominas with white phosphorus for a few crumbs from the US.

Regards

Also I loved the way hindu india dumped iran, when even chinese absatined from voting, the Indians twice voted in favor of US sponsored resolution in the UN to prevent Iran from getting exactly the same things the Indians have always protested are a birth right every country must have.

The Mahabharat teaches hindus treachery and backstabbing for a few crumbs from the US they proved themselves and hypocrites and even back stabbed their old friends. I am sure even the Iranians must have been stumped.

The only honorable people in India appear to be communists, they are opposing India becoming a tool of US foreign policy and providing bases for bombing Iran. India doesnt have the honor to do what even the Saudis, the implacable foes of the Iranians told the US, that is they do not see any threat from Iran and oppose any military action against it.

Tahmed I can understand hindus hating Iran they are just cussed people but why should one hold it against Iran to challenge US/Israeli hegemony in the middle east.

A bully must be challenged. If you have the balls you might expose him else he will tear you down.

But then whith a people who cry, whip and bleed themselves every year for an injustice commited 1400 years ago you never know ,)

But then why does any country seek nuclear weapons and powers, say India which felt threatened by China or Pakistan which needed to for India.

Similarly Iran feels its foreign policy is constrained by the fact that it doesnot have nuclear weapons and Israel and US do.

The question is can the mullahss in Qom be trusted with Nuclear weapons I think they can and are rational actors

This desire to be the "light of ummah" / "the most powerful muslim guy is going to be the cause of downfall of the muslims in the modern age.
The Prophet may be a successful belligerent bandit out to loot other tribes and subdue them in the name of his Allah. But to think that in the modern world this Bedouin strategy is what Sunnat is all about is plain imbecility. Perhaps muslim psyche is a fractured one which is full of thoughts of violence towards others and one self!! This is truly psychotic self abnegation in the name of a non existent moon deity.

borivili #98: What is Ahmedinijad trying to achieve? From your post, it seems it is the following:

1. "If he succeeds he will become the only third world/muslim guy to get away with militarily challenging the US "

2. "it makes him powerful domestically and regionally and gives iran prominence"

Both these reasons are decidedly unworthy:

On 1., military confrontations are not schoolyard fights where you set a goal of showing everyone else how big you are by taking on the biggest guy in class. There have to be more important reasons.

On 2., having foreign confrontations in order to boost your domestic power is a dirty trick played by dictators and power-hungry politicians on the very people they claim to represent. Similarly, while violence and military confrontations may "win" a country a spot in newspaper front pages, may God give such "prominence" to one's enemies. National leaders owe basic freedoms, peace and prosperity to their constituents, not "prominence" to the nation.

Every body supported the Iraq war including such non neo cons as Hillary Clinton, Mccain, friedman, fareed Zakaria the list is endless they all were not pumping for cheney's friends in the defence industry

Dost Mittar despite conspiracy theories Dick Cheney doesnot control Bush or the US military.

This is the best geo strategic confrontation since the vietnam war, it will be short but its impact possibly global, and both parties are not completely rational, Bush listens to his inner voice, and ahmednijad sees angels. But both are restricted due to systemic constraints (yes ahmednijad is too, apparently the republican guard whom he he was supported by and inturn whom he made the most powerful interest group in Iran has apparently turned against its benefactor since they know they will be the first target in case of a US atack, plus there is the supreme religous council of the mullah's in Qom who actually control the military and police)

Bush is restricted by the compulsions of democratic politics and economic/military considerations but is also spurred by other compulsions like lobby groups, US security Interests and his inner voice.

Most interesting is what will be the regional and international fall out of this struggle and what course the military action will take.

Zeemax#51:

In a historical sense, oil prices had started to go up before the Yom Kippur war. Ironically, it was the Shah of Iran, the staunch US ally who was the initiator of a higher oil price. He argued that oil producing countries were not getting a fair price, that the price of the commodities that they purchased had gone up manifold while the price of oil had remained unchanged for decades at around two dollars (yes folks, gas was 35 cents a gallon when I first filled my tank in the sixties). If I recall correctly, he was instrumental in creating OPEC and then raising the price by about 20% to above three dollars.

...and one should remember that the current price of $100 includes, to some extent, the risk of attack on Iran.

CreateAlpha#73:
"DM sahib, what is wrong with the fragmentation of the jihadi mindset across the world?"

Actually, even though shias and sunnys are fighting in Iraq, the umma is more united than ever before on perceiving the US as its enemy. This includes secular Turks, the wahabi Saudis, the Sunni and Shia Iraqis, the "moderate" Malaysians and Indonesians, the subcontinental Muslims and even those living in the West, barring a few exceptions; an attack on Iran will unite them more more. Nothing unites the Umma more than the slogan of "Islam in danger".

hamidm#78:

"..... or is it all about israel? "

The question suggests that you underestimate the importance of the neocon lobby.
But no, Iraq was not just about Israel. Dick Chenny's friends in the oil business have done very well, thank you, as has everyone associated with weapons industry and defence-related sectors of the economy.

and the iranians are not as stupid as you think they first offered to assist the US in Afghanistan because they had had a short skirmish with the taliban just short of a war, but the US rebuffed them and then came the axis of evil speech they knew they were in the US cross hair and that the US knew they were building nukes and would try to stop them that is when they started tying down the US in afghanistan and iraq. they didnt oppose the US invasion of Iraq hoping that after a thousand years finally shias will control baghdad and that the shia will be sympathetic too them creating a large belt of shia territory plus they could tie down the US through their agents and proxies,they are even ass