poetry critical

online poetry workshop


Return To Index 1-10 of 14
Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  unknown  6 Feb 07 12:18AM Post Reply

Iran: a war is coming

1 Feb 2007

The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of “buying time” for its disaster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a “surge” of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. “We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria”, he said. “And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

“Networks” means Iran. “There is solid evidence,” said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, “that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government.” Like Bush’s and Blair’s claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the “evidence” lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, “neocon” fanatics such as Vice-President Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran’s oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington’s Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their “strategy” is to end Iran’s nuclear threat. In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest.

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to “go anywhere and see anything”. They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei says that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences” and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world’s fifth military power with thermo-nuclear weapons aimed at Middle-East targets, an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions and the enforcer of the world’s longest illegal occupation, Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The “threat” from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran’s “nuclear ambitions”, just as the vocabulary of Saddam’s non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonising that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “has done yeoman service in facilitating this”; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals its distortion. According to Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle History, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. He said, “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. This, says Cole, “does not imply military action or killing anyone at all”. Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Jerusalem regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian ergime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

The one piece of “solid evidence” is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorisation, was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorised the stockpiling and deployment of “tactical” nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called “limited” nuclear weapons is being openly discussed in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and Central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers “have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer”.

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia’s most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by Cruise missiles launched in the Mediterranean. “The war in Iraq,” he wrote on 24 January, “was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes. Posing as victims, the Israelis will suffer some tolerable damage and then an outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian hysteria, leaks, disinformation etcetera . . . It remains unclear whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war.”

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the “surge” of US troops to Iraq, Vice-President Cheney said, “It won’t stop us.” Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq. Apart from insipid speeches of “disapproval”, this has not happened and is unlikely to happen. Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a “liberal”. He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzilya, where he spoke about “an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel (sic). At the top of these threats is Iran . . . All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon.” Hillary Clinton has said, “US policy must be unequivocal . . . We have to keep all options on the table.” Pelosi and Howard Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an “apartheid state”. Pelosi said, “Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party.” She is right, alas.

In Britain, Downing Street has been presented with a document entitled “Answering the Charges” by Professor Abbas Edalal of Imperial College, London, on behalf of others seeking to expose the disinformation on Iran. Blair remains silent. Apart from the usual honourable exceptions, Parliament remains shamefully silent.

Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now read Iraq then. And is it not remarkable that North Korea has not been attacked? North Korea has nuclear weapons. That is the message, loud and clear, for the Iranians.

In numerous surveys, such as that conducted this month by BBC World Service, “we”, the majority of humanity, have made clear our revulsion for Bush and his vassals. As for Blair, the man is now politically and morally naked for all to see. So who speaks out, apart from Professor Edalal and his colleagues? Privileged journalists, scholars and artists, writers and thespians who sometimes speak about “freedom of speech” are as silent as a dark West End theatre. What are they waiting for? The declaration of another thousand year Reich, or a mushroom cloud in the Middle East, or both?

John Pilger

re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  unknown  6 Feb 07 2:29AM Post Reply

When the USA first started to fight with Saddam Insane after he made Kuwait the 31 state or something like that - he said it was "the beginning of the mother of all wars". I believed him then, and I still believe it. We have had wars in history that have lasted 100 years, we are at war for a long time, maybe until armageddon. It is nothing new. I don't think Iran will be much of a problem, Iraq fought them for years and could not defeat them, but they don't have our technology. blah, blah,  bla.

re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  unknown  6 Feb 07 10:48AM Post Reply

I don't believe the US government or the people will allow Bush to go to war with Iran.

It's the responsibility of the UN to keep Iran in check with it's nuclear weapons program, it is NOT the US's!  

There are a lot of people imagining a lot of things.  I think that if Bush was that concerned about it, he might have caused war with North Korea, don't you?

Iran is going against what many nations have ruled against.  Why isn't anyone else concerned enough to do something harsh to stop it?  

re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  unknown  6 Feb 07 11:04AM Post Reply


re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  unknown  6 Feb 07 4:24PM Post Reply

Why wasn't there a similar outcry when Israel was acquiring nuclear weapons, the same old double standards again.

re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  ShelbyS  6 Feb 07 6:23PM Post Reply

> I don't believe the US government or the people will allow Bush to go
> to war with Iran.

it is simply not up to the "US government" as a whole, but rather certain parts would make that decision. the people have no say as well, this republicrat disguise has gone on for so long that people actually think that they have a say in the happenings of the United States. wake up people! all of these world events are controlled by one group, whatever you want to call them Illuminati or otherwise, and they make the decisions. Bush is a PAWN. why is this so damn hard for people to see. this is the most minute level of conspiracy that is occuring within this entire illusion of humanity and its really only important to a few people to find out whats going on. I cannot believe honestly that people think they have control in the first place.

> It's the responsibility of the UN to keep Iran in check with it's
> nuclear weapons program, it is NOT the US's!  

its not anyones responsibility. the US and its allies all have nuclear arsenals, as well as many other countries. but its wrong for Iran to have them! of course. lets look at this empirically, who is the most likely to use nukes on another country? Hiroshima anyone?

> There are a lot of people imagining a lot of things.  I think that if
> Bush was that concerned about it, he might have caused war with North
> Korea, don't you?

there will be war with NK eventually, but there is one major motivational change. THERES NO OIL LYING UNDER NORTH KOREA!!

> Iran is going against what many nations have ruled against.  Why
> isn't anyone else concerned enough to do something harsh to stop it?

why anyone wont do anything is because it is Irans right to research what technologies that theyd like. the reason that some countries are attempting to stop the nuclear program in Iran (even though its not been used for military purposes as the article said) is because when the next great war comes and nukes start getting fired, they dont want the chance that they wont be able to take out enough enemies quick enough, or that they wouldnt know who to attack. Iran is not "going against" anything ruled by any nations. Iran is following suit with technology, how hard is that to understand? some of this is so obvious its shocking.


re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  netskyIam  6 Feb 07 6:24PM Post Reply

Poster #1 is on the mark.  The Bush cabal has been quietly subverting the weapons-classification system.  They've re-termed small nukes; made it so they may now employ small-scale tactical nuclear devices at will, without Congressional approval.  

So, what's going to happen, so they may cow Iran from foraying into Iraq to drive out our forces (which, they could do otherwise):  There will be several decisive nuclear strikes in Iran, at military targets: Iranian nuclear facilities.  

This attack will produce two instant results, and then long term results.
The instant results:  Iran will be set-back in its nuclear program.  Iran will not influx Iraq with its army for the time being, at least.

The long term result?  All these second and third world countries will not KNOW that the USA is capable of first-strike nuclear war, and so all will scurry to develope nuclear arsenals; which, of course, will inevitably be used SOONer rather than later, on their local enemies.

This will result in shutdown of oil production in the Middle East.
That will result in shutdown of industrial nations around the world,
and result in simultaneous economic death to all nations of the world,
nuclear fallout is the least of my worries here in the USA.
Rather it will be the end of us all by social anarchy, looting, mobs, starvation.

The last survivors will be rural survivalists.   But yeah, Bush is to precipitate the "end times" for us all.

How fucking typically Christian.

re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  unknown  6 Feb 07 6:24PM Post Reply

I want to get in Shelby's pants.

re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  ShelbyS  6 Feb 07 6:28PM Post Reply

> I want to get in Shelby's pants.

theres a pretty long line for that.

but hey, feel free to queue up. also Im male in case you guessed otherwise, hope that doesnt put a damper on your plans.


re: Onward Christian Soldiers - Here's Your Apocalypse..  netskyIam  6 Feb 07 6:30PM Post Reply


This article appears in the May 27, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
U.S. Nuclear First Strike Doctrine
Is Operational

by Jeffrey Steinberg

The Bush Administration has quietly put into place contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons in pre-emptive attacks on at least two countries—Iran and North Korea. Confirmation of the new "global strike" plan appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, May 15, in a column by William Arkin, a former Army Intelligence analyst. EIR has interviewed several senior U.S. intelligence officials, who have confirmed the essential features of Arkin's report. They link the accelerated drive to prepare for offensive nuclear strikes against Iran and North Korea to the failure of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the dismal results of the use of "shock and awe" massive conventional bombings against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Afghanistan war of 2003 provided the U.S. Air Force with the opportunity to test, under live combat conditions, the conventional "bunker buster" mega-bombs, which were supposed to penetrate and take out deep-underground hardened targets. But one senior U.S. intelligence source told EIR that, when U.S. troops arrived to do damage assessments, they found that the Taliban and Al Qaeda mountain bunkers were still largely intact, after being hit with the bunker busters.

The sources further emphasized that "military strategists see our vulnerabilities, especially after Iraq." U.S. military doctrine, one source said, had previously presumed a capability to engage in two sustained conflicts in two different regions of the world. "Such engagements are no longer possible, as the Iraq occupation shows. So there is now a shift to a doctrine of quick wars. The alternative to this change was to have the U.S. status as the last global superpower exposed as a fraud." The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, noted: "We have 150,000 U.S. troops and thousands of spies—the biggest spy contingent globally—and we can't identify the Iraqi insurgents.... There was a presumption that you could invade and occupy without engaging in any kind of nation-building. And that is an oxymoron."

The source cautioned that the Bush Administration's new global strike plans are premised on the "fantasy" that you can develop a limited nuclear weapons capability that will not radioactively contaminate the area and kill large numbers of people. His final indictment of the new Bush Administration pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine was that, ultimately, when you talk about targetting North Korea, which is the number one target for a possible Bush Administration pre-emptive nuclear strike, you are really talking about war with China.

Return To Index
1 2 | Next