Is Iran Next?

[Satori]

Interesting article from In These Times. Here is a portion from that article:

Is Iran Next?
The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target
By Tom Barry
September 28, 2004

Shortly after 9/11, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith began coordinating Pentagon planning for an invasion of Iraq. The challenge facing Feith, the No. 3 civilian in the Defense Department, was to establish a policy rationale for the attack. At the same time, Feith?s ideological cohorts in the Pentagon began planning to take the administration?s ?global war on terrorism,? not only to Baghdad, but also to Damascus and Tehran.

In August it was revealed that one of Feith?s Middle East policy wonks, Lawrence Franklin, shared classified documents--including a draft National Security Presidential Directive formulated in Feith?s office that outlines a more aggressive U.S. national security strategy regarding Iran--with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Israeli officials. The FBI is investigating the document transfer as a case of espionage.

This spy scandal raises two concerns for U.S. diplomats and foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum. One, that U.S. Middle East policy is being directed by neoconservative ideologues variously employed, coordinated or sanctioned by Feith?s Pentagon office. And two, that U.S. Middle East policy is too closely aligned with that of Israeli hardliners close to U.S. neoconservatives.
...
This article is permanently archived at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1114/

It has always been my belief that America's attack on Afghanistan was a trial run for later invading Iraq. Of course, the official story was that we were trying to locate Osama bin Laden. However, if that was truly the case, then why did the present administration give up those plans and go after Saddam instead? It would seem that plans were always in the works to invade Iraq and then later Iran.

What do all of you think about this issue? Agree? Disagree?


:souka:

 

[Brooker]

Bush already does whatever he wants without considering the voices of the American public and the international community, just imagine how he'll be if he wins re-election and doesn't have to worry about appeasing anyone to get another term. If he wants to attack Iran (or even Canada for that matter) what's going to stop him? :banghead: :gun: :kaioken: kashii:

 

[mad pierrot]

Not to say it's sure..

But I've got a friend high in the military who assures me that if Bush gets elected for a second term Iran will be delt with.

Not sure if I believe him yet, but it's damn scary.

kashii:


btw, don't ask me where he is or what he's doing. Heh, it would be rude to post private info like that online.

 

[Satori]

Well, what also concerns me is the fact that the present administration is trying to bring back the draft, and it appears they are trying to slip this past us while our attention is on the election. Here is what someone posted at another forum:

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about. This literally effects everyone since we all have or know children
that will have to go if this bill passes.

There is pending legislation in the house and senate (companion bills: S89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and links follow. This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been made very difficult.

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for you to read. It is less than two pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no longer be an option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with the Canada which will no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay within it's borders. This bill also includes the extension of military service for all those that are currently active. If you go to the select service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase the size of the military in case of terrorism. This is a critical piece of legislation, this will effect our undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren. Please take the time to write your congressman and let them know how you feel about this legislation.
www.house.gov www.senate.gov

Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

Please see www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the Selective Service System annual performance plan, fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services. Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December, 200 1, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30 point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Reminds me of how they already had the U.S. Patriot Act in place before 9/11 and then pushed it through right after that in order to get instant approval. Somebody is certainly planning on continuing the war. :souka:

 

[CC1]

You know? I went and read the bill, and as a whole I don't have any problem with it. I have been saying for some time now that service to the country should be mandated in some form or another. I personally am glad to see that they would like to add women to the draft.

Realize one thing though. No action has been taken on this since Feb 2003, It appears to be hopelessly stalled. Too many people with differing opinions.

 

[Satori]

Not only is the current administration probably going to institute the draft, they are also trying to prevent soldiers currently serving from leaving:

Army to Soldiers: Re-enlist Now or Face Immediate Deployment to Iraq:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5272.shtml

More on the Bush draft: http://www.bushdraft.com/

Bush claims to be some sort of National Security genius. Why? Because he has done a good job of going to war on false evidence? For those who claim he has a good National Security record think about this: During Vietnam he dodged the draft, used his family connections to get a non-combat job in the national guard, skipping over 100 thousand men already on the list for the Texas National Guard and then he didn't bother showing up! Thats right! He went AWOL for 18 months! Do you really think a man with a record like this should have the right to send OUR kids off to war?

I am opposed to a draft for anyone for any reason. :souka:

 

[Maciamo]

It would seem logical for Iran to be the next if Bush gets re-elected. It was with Iraq and North Korea on Bush's axis of evil, and is already sandwiched by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What we have to understand is why the Bush administration would like to invade Iran. Why did they invade Afghanistan ? Bin Laden ? Wrong answer. The right answer is oil (building a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan so that the US owned firms there can export their oil via the Indian Ocean). Why did they invade Iraq ? Saddam is an evil dictator (put in power by the US to fight Iran in 1979) and is connected to Al Qaida. Wrong answer again. The right answer is simply oil too (more evident this time).
Don't forget that Bush started his carreer in the oil business and still makes most of his money there with his friends.

So why would they want to attack Iran ? Why, why ? But, yes, oil !! Iran also has plenty of oil. And whay would be the pretext this time ? Well if Bin Laden is nowhere to be found in Afghanisthan or Iraq, he must have been hiding in neighbouring Iran, famous for giving refuge to terrorists for decades. Another reason ? Weapons of mass destruction. This time the American public will buy it as Iran has more capabilities than Iraq had on the matter. Better still, they have also refused to let UN inspectors in. Sounds familiar ?

 

[mad pierrot]

You know what I really, really fear?

It's something other than oil.

Don't ask me why; I don't know.
But it makes me uneasy.




On the brightside, even if it is oil it won't matter much in 40 years when it's all gone!


:balloon:

 

[Satori]

It would seem logical for Iran to be the next if Bush gets re-elected. It was with Iraq and North Korea on Bush's axis of evil, and is already sandwiched by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What we have to understand is why the Bush administration would like to invade Iran. Why did they invade Afghanistan ? Bin Laden ? Wrong answer. The right answer is oil (building a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan so that the US owned firms there can export their oil via the Indian Ocean). Why did they invade Iraq ? Saddam is an evil dictator (put in power by the US to fight Iran in 1979) and is connected to Al Qaida. Wrong answer again. The right answer is simply oil too (more evident this time).
Don't forget that Bush started his carreer in the oil business and still makes most of his money there with his friends.

So why would they want to attack Iran ? Why, why ? But, yes, oil !! Iran also has plenty of oil. And whay would be the pretext this time ? Well if Bin Laden is nowhere to be found in Afghanisthan or Iraq, he must have been hiding in neighbouring Iran, famous for giving refuge to terrorists for decades. Another reason ? Weapons of mass destruction. This time the American public will buy it as Iran has more capabilities than Iraq had on the matter. Better still, they have also refused to let UN inspectors in. Sounds familiar ?

I absolutely agree with everything you just wrote! I think Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America are developing a stronghold on the oil and water rights in the Middle East, and I think they've been planning this for a long time. :souka:

 

[ippolito]

I hope not...do not forget that perhaps Iran has atomic bomb......whoo knows
what could happen in Iran invasion....I think that Iran is strongest than Iraq
I think Europe will not follow such war...ok France Spain and Gemany are just watching now..GB and Italy are in Iraq...but as strategic position they are irrilevant as number and power...it is just politic as Usa are not alone there.
I think that it would be for us to enter in wet sands swamp.
I hope all this will not happen as we could really be near to a nuclear war
and it would be such distructions that the IIWorl War would be a picnic.

 

[mad pierrot]

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2003

rank Country 2003 proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 261.7
2. Iraq 115.0
3. Iran 100.1
4. Kuwait 98.9
5. United Arab Emirates 63.0
6. Russia 58.8
7. Venezuela 53.1
8. Nigeria 32.0
9. Libya 30.0
10. China 23.7

A little old, but I doubt it makes much difference. Looking at it, it would seem U.S. policy has all but one of the top 5 under their thumb.

:frown:

 

[Satori]

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2003

rank Country 2003 proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 261.7
2. Iraq 115.0
3. Iran 100.1
4. Kuwait 98.9
5. United Arab Emirates 63.0
6. Russia 58.8
7. Venezuela 53.1
8. Nigeria 32.0
9. Libya 30.0
10. China 23.7

A little old, but I doubt it makes much difference. Looking at it, it would seem U.S. policy has all but one of the top 5 under their thumb.

:frown:

Exactly! :souka:

 

[Midori]

It's disgusting! If Bush gets re-elected.... *censored*

 

[Winter]

Ah, more propaganda against the Big-Bad-Bush.

I'm not even going to bother debating this right now. Even though I want to. Oh do I.

 

[cicatriz esp]

I absolutely agree with everything you just wrote! I think Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America are developing a stronghold on the oil and water rights in the Middle East, and I think they've been planning this for a long time. :souka:

I'm not sure if i could see Israel and Saudi Arabia planning anything together. Too much hatred there.

 

[CC1]

Not only is the current administration probably going to institute the draft, they are also trying to prevent soldiers currently serving from leaving:


I am opposed to a draft for anyone for any reason. :souka:

Ok, I watched a tape delay of the 1st debate last night. Straight from Kerry's lip: He plans to create two more US Army divisions . And he also wants to double the size of the special forces.
Where are those people going to come from? Do you realize how many people make up a division? Also, how are you going to double the size of the special forces? We already weed out the ones who can not make it. What is he going to do? Lower the requirements? Yeah, that will do wonders for our military! :?

But after seeing the debate, I really don't want either of these guys...Bush continually makes himself look stupid everytime he opens his mouth. But Kerry only says what people want to hear! He has no true plan, and he is incapable of leading this country! I used to think that this was just mudslinging, but he truly does flip-flop. He did it a few times during the debate...so which answer are you supposed to believe? :?

Maybe I should just do a write in! Things could have been much easier if Powell would decide to run for President. :souka:

 

[Maciamo]

He plans to create two more US Army divisions . And he also wants to double the size of the special forces.
Where are those people going to come from? Do you realize how many people make up a division? Also, how are you going to double the size of the special forces?

Did he say double the special forces in Iraq or in total ? The United States armed forces consists of 1.4 million active duty personnel, so if he wants to get 2 more divisons in Iraq (where the total of troops is about 150,000), they could just come from the 1.25 million left in the US or stationed around the world (esp. Germany or Japan, as there is little need for them there right now).

But after seeing the debate, I really don't want either of these guys...Bush continually makes himself look stupid everytime he opens his mouth. But Kerry only says what people want to hear!

I also watched the debate on the WashingtonPost's streamline video and I thought that Kerry did indeed deliver an almost perfect speech (while Bush looked even more stupid than usual and visibly nervous without someone preparing what he had to say - except for the conclusion, which he had obviously memorized and was the only fluent and coherent part).

He has no true plan, and he is incapable of leading this country!

If he has good aides, could be ok.

I used to think that this was just mudslinging, but he truly does flip-flop.

I didn't find so. I can understand that one changes mind in function of the circumstances and current intelligence. I also disagree with Bush that the president should never change his mind, even if he is mistaken, so as to look coherent (what ! Bush said that !), steadfast and determined, and not to send mixed signals. Bush repeated this like 5x. I don't think repeating one's mistakes is being more intelligent than changing strategy when the events happen differently from all that was predicted.

 

[Mike in Japan]

You know what I really, really fear?
It's something other than oil.

I'm inclined to agree. I honestly think it is all about democracy, freedom and humanitarianism. People opposed to these ideals will fight a lot harder to prevent them than they will for oil!
Darker motives are not hard to assume, but in my humble ( ) assessment such assumptions are just the result of being jaded.

 

[Maciamo]

I'm inclined to agree. I honestly think it is all about democracy, freedom and humanitarianism. People opposed to these ideals will fight a lot harder to prevent them than they will for oil!

That's quite naive to think that the Bush administration wants freedom and democracy for Iraq. They have only brought chaos and war. Iraqi people are now more divided than ever on what kind of government is best for them - but you can't just kill half or a third of the population who opposes democracy (lots of them being Muslim fundamentalists, or former Saddam Hussein supporters). Bringing peace to Iraq in the current situation will only happen by killing all the supporters of one or the other faction. Is that what the US is fighting for ? Is that humanitarianism ?

 

[mad pierrot]

Hold the horses!

What I fear isn't that the U.S. is planning on bringing democracy and such to Iraq.

No, I'm afraid that U.S. foriegn policy had become a hydra of corporate animalism. I mean, I wouldn't be so scared if the U.S. plainly stated that it was protecting it's vested interest in the oil business. But it isn't the U.S. that is interested, it's individuals who are. The problem is the number of politicians who don't mind sellling out for a buck. That's what scares me.

Democracy? This sounds more and more like an oligarchy of the rich.

Is that what the US is fighting for ?

If I had to answer, I'd say the interests of the wealthy and ignorant. Many people with good intentions would rather believe it's for peace and democracy. Wouldn't you rather believe the EU was based on good feelings rather than financial benefit?