Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View no iranian involvment, says iraq
7 years ago  ::  May 07, 2008 - 7:35PM #21
Mlyons619
Posts: 16,572
[QUOTE=rangerken;483717]...And I agree with both Mylons and Father_O's opinions about the Iraqi government...except I'd be perhaps even more derisory...[/QUOTE]

I dunno about that Ken.

I AM a sailor - and you know what they say about sailor's and swearing.

But I'm not supposed to use vulgar language here, hence the restraint....
"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 07, 2008 - 11:42PM #22
SherriMunnerlyn
Posts: 7,519
Here are the headlines of articles on CASMII website today, which has very good coverage of articles addressing potential US Iran War. It does not look good.

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node

Working for International Dialogue and Peace
Report: US convenes on Iran war scenario

Media Disinformation: Iran's Link to Iraqi Insurgents

Top U.S. officer says would prefer no war on Iran

Investigate the Pentagon Pundit Program

Condi Stomps the Mullahs

Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change After 9/11

Assassins of Peace

New offer threatens Iran's 'red line'

Iran says new talks with U.S. on Iraq meaningless

Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?

Former UN weapons inspector says attack on Iran 'virtual guarantee'

The old drumbeat
"Editor's note: It should be pointed out that in response to the recent US accusations of interference, Iran has "completely denied ... training, financing and arming" militant groups in Iraq."

Obama accuses Clinton of using the language of Bush on Iran

Selling the War with Iran
"Editor's note: Nir Rosen is one of America's most significant chroniclers of the Islamic dimensions of America's war in the Middle East. He is a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security, and a former fellow of the New America Foundation. In September 2007, he was the C.V. Starr Distinguished Visitor at the American Academy in Berlin."

Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive

Iran Opens War Avoidance Flank

Iran will not bow to Western pressure, leader says

Iran denies militia backing in Iraq

United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp
"Editor's note: The US is making Iran the scapegoat for the catastrophes it has created by the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. All existing evidence indicate that the war camp in the Bush administration is desparate to justify and launch a military attack on Iran and declare some victory before it leaves office in January 2009."

Iran won't talk to U.S. on Iraq till US attacks on Iraqis stop
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 08, 2008 - 2:28PM #23
newyawka
Posts: 1,772
[QUOTE]Who benefits from a war with Iran? George W. Bush, most of all, since another war will serve him as a drug to anesthetize the pains of Iraq and drown the half-knowledge of what he has done. The smaller calamity will be lost in the cloud and confusion of the greater. For Dick Cheney, a war with Iran would be the fulfillment of a dream. For the Republican Party a larger war presents the key to the lock-down on debate which the September 11 bombings offered a first tantalizing glimpse of. For Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a war against the U.S. would tighten his grip on arbitrary power, and if the war could be seen as provoked by the U.S., he might succeed in ruling without substantial challenge for years to come.

Whom would a war between Iran and the U.S. not benefit? The list is shorter. It would not benefit the people of the United States, and it would not benefit the people of Iran. But the men and women of the Bush administration are genuinely excited. The mainstream media are excited. Two of the presidential candidates are excited. The Congress and Senate are paralyzed. And that is where we are in May 2008--a mood not unlike that of August 2002.[/QUOTE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bro … 00513.html

i have bolded one sentence above because the article i've quoted is about how michael gordon - successor to judith miller as the NYT's war propagandist - is at his job, trying to confuse readers about iran
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 08, 2008 - 11:05PM #24
rangerken
Posts: 16,408
Newyawka, seriously, do you really think the New York Times would support a war with Iran?

Ken
Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 08, 2008 - 11:05PM #25
rangerken
Posts: 16,408
Newyawka, seriously, do you really think the New York Times would support a war with Iran?

Ken
Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 09, 2008 - 11:16AM #26
teilhard
Posts: 51,880
[QUOTE=newyawka;484711]every attempt of the administration to manufacture a casus against iran has been exposed. i can see two effects of this: 1) nobody but the coolaid drinkers are swallowing this latest attempt; 2) the fact that the administration is still trying to trump something up shows their utter bankruptcy. surely there is contact between iraqi shia and their coreligionists right next door. but those are the people of iraq, you know, not a bunch of invaders from thousands of miles away, and it's up to them to decide how to be.[/QUOTE]

SOME of our ongoing paranoia about "Iran"
obviously has PLENTY to do with "The Hostage Crisis" ...

In the meantime,
The Iranians ALSO vividly remember how The U.S. CIA
installed The Shah as OUR Guy back in the 1950s ...

"History"
isn't "finished" just yet ....
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 09, 2008 - 11:34AM #27
newyawka
Posts: 1,772
[QUOTE=teilhard;488505]SOME of our ongoing paranoia about "Iran"
obviously has PLENTY to do with "The Hostage Crisis" ...

In the meantime,
The Iranians ALSO vividly remember how The U.S. CIA
installed The Shah as OUR Guy back in the 1950s ...[/QUOTE]

holy moly! we agree! why oh why do yanks not admit the thorough justification for the 1979 revolution? which is a separate question entirely from the behavior of the hotheads and their high ranking enablers (perhaps i should say the high ranking puppeteers and their marionettes) in kidnapping (basically) the embassy staff. and a separate question entirely from the hijacking of a broad-based rebellion, including secularists and leftists, by the iranian religious establishment.

here's a slight update on current matters:

[QUOTE]Neither Washington nor Tehran shows signs of budging in the current standoff, which escalated this month after U.S. military officials said Iranian-made weapons manufactured in 2008 had been found in the southern city of Basra. They said the weapons showed that Iran had not kept a promise to Iraq late last year to stop interfering in the country.

But after an Iraqi parliament delegation visited Iran last week to discuss the evidence, it returned saying only that a committee was needed to further investigate the claims. Neither Iraq nor the U.S. has displayed any of the alleged Iranian-made weapons.[/QUOTE]

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itso … s0275.html
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 14, 2008 - 11:34AM #28
arielg
Posts: 9,116
If you don't want the same mistake made with Iran, then don't vote for McCain. If you do, you are voting for more meaningless war"

I don't think it will be the US that bombs Iran.    It will be Netanyaho, who will be the next prime minister of Israel and a rabid warmonger.  And he will do it before Bush leaves office.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  May 15, 2008 - 11:15AM #29
newyawka
Posts: 1,772
further analysis of US saber-rattling:

[QUOTE]Early this month, the George W. Bush administration's plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse US charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms were of Iranian origin.

The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shiite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the US military from a much bigger blow to its anti-Iran strategy.[/QUOTE]

continued here: http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12841
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook