The Bush administration has continued trumpeting the fear that Iran may develop nuclear weapons. This charge, however, is not credible, at least in the near-term. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El-Baradei reports there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The CIA indicates that it would take Iran a decade to develop nuclear weapons. Many independent experts believe Iran's nuclear claims are more bluster than substance. The Bush administration's charge and the lack of evidence to support it, is ominously similar to the claims leveled against Iraq.
What else could be behind pursuing a war against Iran? Is it that the administration wishes to support Israel, which views Iran as a significant threat? Is it that Iran, like Iraq before it, is talking about changing its currency for oil revenues to Euros? Could it be that Mr. Bush likes being a "war president," and, rather than accept defeat in Iraq, is seeking to extend the war into Iran?
There have been reports in by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the U.S. has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/february/21/wallace/
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 22, 2007]
Note: http://www.embassymag.c...
Make Sure The U.S. Doesn't Fool The World Again
Posted on Thursday, February 22 at 08:56 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
I just hope they don't use nukes.
---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”
The last time that happened they had mass protests and riots in the streets, and this time around bet of them beginning 5 minutes after the law is passed and not 5 years.
You think the neo-cons would want to fight an election in under two years with that much sh*t hitting the fan?
The Democrats would bury them (that is of course unless the neo-cons use the old false flag card).
Also, like the Russians would sit idly by and allow that to happen almost on their doorstep? Russia has two cards to play here: the obvious military one (proximity is everything in invasions), and natural gas.
The US does an Iran trip, Russia cuts of gas to Europe. European citizens would not be angry at Russia, but at the US for provoking Russia. These citizens would no doubt pressure their governments to terminate whatever agreements they have with the US concerning military bases on their territory.
The US cannot afford to lose bases in Europe, because the US needs Europe a hell of a lot more than Europe needs the US.
Also, bet on Great Britain sitting this one out if it happens.
Only an absolute madman would even consider such an act.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
Bush? Every American president has at one point or another convinced Americans that they are supreme. From Washington & afterward, the president of the USA has brainwashed his own people that they and only they are what matters on earth. This is not the first invasion, just one of the biggest and Bush was foolhardy to not hide yet another failed takeover. The Americans are upset about Bush not leading a winning effort to take over another country. That is the point. They are losing and not because the invasion was wrong to begin with. If the situation in Iraq was one of which the Americans had an upper hand, then Bush would have been a hero.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.