Is Iran Being Set Up? - Democratic Underground

Henny Penny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 06:42 PM
Original message

Is Iran Being Set Up?

No, this time it is not Larouche...

http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp07272005.html

Meanwhile, my pessimism deepens as I read an online excerpt from an article by Philip Giraldi, in the American Conservative. It indicates that:

(1) the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has been asked to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" and

(2) that Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi.

Can it get madder than this? The neocons' plans for a total reorganization of the "Greater Middle East" have been plain for some time now. Many have been warning against the prospect of an expansion of the Iraq War into Syria and Iran. You'd think that reality would smack these guys in the face and they'd call off anything so stupid. But they apparently think that by using conventional and nuclear weapons (first time any nation will do that since Nagasaki); by employing the Mujahadeen Khalq; by activating agents in place to organize demonstrations (as the CIA did so successfully in Iraq in 1953); by attacking from Azerbaijan they can actually pull this off. Do they even realize that southern Iraq and Iran constitute the heartland of historical Shiism, and that an attack on Iran will negate any goodwill among Shiites U.S. forces have acquired in Iraq?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FogerRox

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:01 PM
Response to Original message

1. LOL-- Mike MAlloy went over this maybe a month ago

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Henny Penny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. So Iran needn't worry?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Henny Penny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:02 PM
Response to Original message

2. I posted this in response to the shutting down of Domitan's

thread quoting Larouche.

Irespective of the source, I think it is an important question.

Guess I'll just have to kick it myself!!

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

converted_democrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. Let me help you out with that!!! n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Henny Penny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. Hi Convert... I think the rule regarding sources should

surely not be so stringent when it comes to General Discussion.

Also shutting down a thread after just 30 mins means no-one has time to find a reputable source.

And I think the Iran question is a serious question. Much more important than whether or not * used a pen or his index finger... IMHO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wli

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message

5. obviously, yes

Iraq and Afghanistan were soft targets. Guess what they're both adjacent to? Ever heard of a pincer attack?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Henny Penny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. I think that regime change in Iran has been a long term goal

but if the US admin wants to achieve it by military action involving recently setup bases in the central asian republics near by, they will have to act quickly.

"The SCO notice to Washington was followed by statements from the Uzbek and Kyrgyz governments suggesting they were reconsidering the future of American bases on their territory.

A day after his victory in the presidential polls on 17 July, Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev said the presence of a US base in the Central Asian nation should be reconsidered.

A week earlier, neighbouring Uzbekistan, too, had given warning shots to the US about its presence in this oil-rich country."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A7A5EC54-C516-4618-A277-52CE6622BCC3.htm

And if they are to act quickly, how could they possibly justify their actions?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wli

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. with a nuclear 9/11 part 2

The SCO is something of a serious issue. It's probable that the SCO will side against the US during an invasion of Iran, and so another Cheney warfraud may end up being a much broader conflict than we anticipate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Deja Q

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 07:12 PM
Response to Original message

7. If it backfires, we're all toast. No oil = no life.

Of course, no jobs = no life because no money = no life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 12:19 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.