Author
|
Topic: Does it all hang on a phrase? (Read 947 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Does it all hang on a phrase?
« on: 2008-02-01 19:56:03 » |
 |
Bush Betrays Belligerent Intentions Toward Iran in State of Union
[ Hermit : Due to weather considerations, and allowing for the risk of early or late warm, but not insanely hot, yet dry weather, the only sane time for an attack on Iran is between the latter part of February and June. More credible is the second week in April to the last week of May. The times of maximum danger are cool dry moonless and preferably but not necessarily windless nights. If this window is missed there will be no attacks unless the US no longer has competent military analysts and commanders on the duty roster, or all of the competent ones have been silenced (possible but unlikely). ]
Authors: Matthew Rothschild
Dated: 2008-01-29January 29, 2008
The only noteworthy thing about Bush’s State of the Union address was his unmistakable belligerence toward Iran.
He mentioned that nation first in the context of why the United States must stay in Iraq: otherwise, we would “strengthen Iran,” Bush said.
He could have thought about that before invading Iraq, but he didn’t. And now he’s back in a bombing mood.
Never mind that that the National Intelligence Estimate said Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons and didn’t have an active nuclear weapons program. Hermit : And as I have shown here previously, neither the IAEA, nor rational competent assessors, nor even any members of the UN Security Council consider for a moment that there is any solid evidence that Iran previously had an active nuclear weapons program. Unlike Israel. Bush still raised the specter of Iran with a nuclear weapon.
He castigated the Iranian government for opposing freedom wherever it “advances in the Middle East.” [ Hermit : If aiding anyone who considers Israel's ongoing genocide of the Palestinians is equivalent to "opposing freedom" and supporting terrorists or militia groups, then he might be right. Which possibly raises the question of what the US has done world wide for most of the last hundred years. Not only is Bush a liar, he is a pusillanimous hypocrite. And this is visible to the rest of the world, not just Iran. ] And he said Iran was aiding terrorists or militia groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and in Iraq. [ Hermit : And of course the USA remains the only country to have been found guilty of terrorism before the world court. And is currently shielding accused terrorists against Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua while attempting to prevent the release of Norriaga at the expiry of his complete sentence least he speak to HW Bush's complicity in sponsoring terrorism.]
It’s the latter excuse that he’s going to hang his helmet on.
I’m betting that Bush will try to come to the American people once more before his term is up and declare that forces trained by Iran have attacked our troops in Iraq, and that he therefore is going after them.
Listen to his words: “Above all, know this,” Bush warned. “America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.”
Even more ominous was Bush’s line, “Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you.”
As Robert Fisk has pointed out [ Hermit : Infra ] , this is the mantra that Presidents use whenever they are about to attack another country.
It is an imperial tic, a ritual throat-clearing before the war-making, the rattle of the snake before the lashing bite.
Here are some quotes from the imperial tic file:- “The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people.” Sept. 12, 2002, Bush to UN
- “We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression, and they will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met.”Oct. 5, 2002, Bush radio address
- “Our message to the people of Iraq is clear: We have no quarrel with you.” Jan. 28, 2003, Bush State of the Union
- Then there was Tony Blair, echoing his boss: “Let me make it quite clear that our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people.” March 19, 2003, Tony Blair addressing Parliament
- And, for a little family fealty, here is Bush’s dad: “Let there be no misunderstanding. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq.” Sept. 17, 1990, George H.W. Bush, speech to the nation
- Finally, the beatified Ronald Reagan: “The attacks were concentrated and carefully targeted to minimize casualties among the Libyan people with whom we have no quarrel.” April 14, 1986, Ronald Reagan speech to the nation.
So when Bush told the Iranian people on Monday night that he’s got no quarrel with them, that could hardly have been reassuring.
And for those of us who cherish peace, those of us who abhor imperial misadventures, we must pressure our elected officials to stop this madman before he wages yet another reckless war, this time in Iran.
We can’t say he didn’t warn us.
The mantra that means this time it's serious
Source: Robert-Fisk.com originally The Independent
Authors: Robert Fisk
Dated: 2002-09-13
How small he looked in the high-backed chair. You had to sit in the auditorium of the UN General Assembly yesterday to realise that George Bush Jnr – threatening war in what was built as a house of peace – could appear such a little man. But then again Julius Caesar was a little man and so was Napoleon Bonaparte. So were other more modern, less mentionable world leaders. Come to think of it so was General Douglas MacArthur, who had his own axis of evil, which took him all the way to the Yalu river.
But yesterday, two-thirds of the way through his virtual declaration of war, there came a little, dangerous, telltale code, which suggested that President Bush really does intend to send his tanks across the Tigris river. "The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people,'' he said. In the press gallery, nobody stirred. Below us, not a diplomat shifted in his seat. The speech had already rambled on for 20 minutes but the speechwriters must have known what this meant when they cobbled it together.
Before President Reagan bombed Libya in 1985, he announced that America "had no quarrel with the Libyan people.'' Before he bombed Iraq in 1991, Bush the Father told the world that the United States "had no quarrel with the Iraqi people''. Last year Bush the Son, about the strike at the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, told us he "had no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan". And now that frightening mantra was repeated. There was no quarrel, Mr Bush said – absolutely none – with the Iraqi people. So it's flak jackets on.
Perhaps it was the right place to understand just how far the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq might take us. The green marble fittings, the backcloth wall of burnished gold and the symbol of that dangerous world shielded by the UN's palm trees gave Mr Bush the furnishings of an emperor, albeit a diminutive one. Just a day earlier, he told us, America had commemorated an attack that had "brought grief to my country''.
But he didn't mention Osama bin Laden, not once. It was Saddam Hussein to whom we had to be reintroduced – he used Saddam's name seven times in his address, with countless references to the "Iraqi regime".
Riding that veil of American tears which bin Laden's killers had created, it was also clear that the Bush plans for the Middle East were on a far greater scale than the mere overthrow of the Iraqi leader who once regarded himself as America's best friend in the Gulf. There must be a democratic Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai vigorously nodded his approval – and there must be democracy in Palestine; and this would lead to "reforms throughout the Muslim world". Reforms? In Saudi Arabia? In Jordan? In Iran? We were not told.
The Bush theme, of course, was an all too familiar one, of Saddamite evil, lashed with the usual caveats, conditional clauses and historical distortions. We all know Saddam Hussein is a vicious, cruel dictator – we knew that when he was our friend – but the President insisted on telling us again. Saddam had repeatedly flouted UN Security Council resolutions; no mention here, of course, of Israel's flouting of resolutions 242 and 338 demanding an end to the occupation of Palestinian land.
Mr Bush spoke of the tens of thousands of opponents of Saddam Hussein who had been arrested and imprisoned and summarily executed and tortured – "all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state".
But there was no mention, unfortunately, that all these beatings and burnings and electric shocks and mutilations and rapes were being merrily perpetrated when America was on very good terms with Iraq before 1990, when the Pentagon was sending intelligence information to Saddam to help him kill more Iranians.
Indeed one of the most telling aspects of the Bush speech was that all the sins of which he specifically accused the Iraqis – a good proportion of which are undoubtedly true – began in the crucial year of 1991. There was no reference to Saddam's flouting of UN resolutions when the Americans were helping him. There were a few reminders by Mr Bush of the gas attacks against Iran – without mentioning that this very same Iran is now supposed to be part of the "axis of evil".
Then there were the little grammatical problems, the slight of hand historians use when they cannot find the evidence to prove that Richard III really did kill the princes in the tower. If it wasn't for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq "would likely'' have possessed a nuclear weapon by 1993. Iraq "retains the physical infrastructure need to build'' a nuclear weapon – which is not the same thing as actually building it. The phrase "should Iraq acquire fissile material'' doesn't mean it has. And being told that Iraq's enthusiasm for nuclear scientists "leaves little doubt'' about its appetite for nuclear weapons isn't quite the same having it proved.
Maybe this supposition is true – but is that the evidence upon which America will go to war? The UN – for this was the emperor's message to the delegates sitting before him – could take it or leave it, join America in war or end up like that old donkey, the League of Nations. Believe it or not, Mr Bush actually mentioned the League, dismissing it as a talking shop without adding that the US had refused to join.
But it was clear how Mr Bush would sell his war on the back of 11 September. "Our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale,'' he said. And there you have it. Osama bin Laden equals Saddam Hussein and – who knows – Iran or Syria or anyone else. What was the name of that river which Julius Caesar crossed? Was it not called the Rubicon? Yesterday, Mr Bush may have crossed the very same river.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.93
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Does it all hang on a phrase?
« Reply #1 on: 2008-02-06 18:16:05 » |
|
Gentlemen great reading; my hats off to you all.
But, I couldn't help myself; my feeble 'grey matter' actually remembered reading this last summer, so I post it for the entertainment value. :-)
Cheers
Fritz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845044.html
Last update - 18:23 03/04/2007
Top Russian general: U.S. attack on Iran would be 'huge mistake' By Reuters and Haaretz Service
The head of Russia's general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, warned the U.S. on Tuesday that a war with Iran would be "impossible to win."
"Shockwaves from this attack could be felt around the world," said Baluyevksy, adding that the U.S. would not be able to defeat Iran.
Unnamed Russian intelligence sources have said the U.S. may attack Iran as early as April 6. Tensions have accumulated over Washington's accusations that Tehran is building nuclear weapons, and Iran's capture of 15 British naval staff on March 23.
Russia sells weapons to the Iranian military, and is building an atomic plant in Iran's southwestern port city of Bushehr. Construction of the plant is currently on hold over a payment dispute.
Iran said on Tuesday that if Russia does not deliver atomic fuel for the Islamic Republic's first power station, the move would justify Tehran's disputed work to produce its own nuclear fuel.
Iran's own enrichment program to make fuel for power plants is at the center of a row with the West which believes Tehran secretly wants to enrich uranium to levels which could be used to make material for atomic bombs. Tehran denies this.
"If the Russians do not want to deliver the fuel to us it will prove the issue that we should seriously follow enrichment ourselves," Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told reporters.
He said "financial obstacles have been solved" in the dispute with Russia. Russian officials said last month that Iran had resumed payments to Russia for the power plant construction but said Tehran was still in arrears
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Does it all hang on a phrase?
« Reply #2 on: 2008-02-06 21:01:17 » |
|
I quoted similar things here this time last year, but IIRC estimated that it would be a little later in the month, based on weather, fleet movements, Islamic festivities and lunar cycles. At the time there was bafflement as to why it didn't happen. It turned out that the internal US military estimations matched that of the Russians - and mine - and so they told their political masters how to bend, fold and mutilate the idea. This year the pressure from Israel, the hapless, spineless suppoert from the Democrats, the desperation of the neocons, the eating of their own propaganda that there is less pressure on the military in Iraq, the global financial crises brought on by US profligacy to support its costly, unnecessary illegal wars and the lame duck status of the dreadful Bush and worse Cheney who must by now have some inkling that no matter how they may disagree, they are going to be memorialized as the worst administration in US history and possibly the instigators of the effective end of the Republic all combine to make me very nervous about Iran, Syria, North Korea and Pakistan.
Even though perennial issues, like India and Pakistan squaring off for a nuclear war over the Peshwar, and the Republic of China and People's Republic of China yelling the diplomatic equivalent of insults at each other over the fence while the US is massively over committed still are of great concern, all these nations seem positively peaceful with rational and enlightened leadership compared to the Likudnic troglodytes lurking in the Whitehouse.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.93
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Does it all hang on a phrase?
« Reply #3 on: 2008-02-07 12:41:19 » |
|
[Hermit] Even though perennial issues, like India and Pakistan squaring off for a nuclear war over the Peshwar, and the Republic of China and People's Republic of China yelling the diplomatic equivalent of insults at each other over the fence while the US is massively over committed still are of great concern, all these nations seem positively peaceful with rational and enlightened leadership compared to the Likudnic troglodytes lurking in the Whitehouse.
Okey; no disagreement with your assessment of the Bush-Neocon dynasty.
What I can't grasp is that I would have thought the puppeteers in the corporate world might have at some level more insight to were this is going (I am going down with you all, given Canada's ties{owned by} to/the US). I'm assuming the ENRON community was the 'out lier' in the data set of the business world and at least some of the rest will be trying to push the US in a more sustainable direction.
It also appears to me (and I am unable to empirically support this) that the US wallowing in the fundamentalist right is over and with it the resolve to go around the world with a big stick at the tax payers expense.
I just finished reading Paris 1919, Margret MacMillan and gee wiz the west, has established a long tradition of getting it totally wrong when dealing with the political structure and alignment of rest of the world; which makes the "Likudnic troglodytes lurking in the Whitehouse" all the more responsible for war crimes, given they should have know better.
BUT I still can't grasp that the corporate world isn't supporting a healthier US ? Even industry is starting to pay lip service to the environment (yes I know convenient now that all the polluting industries are in Asia) they have grasped that there is money to be made in cleaning the mess up, but only if the economy is healthy enough to support it. Surely even the corporate greed that though there was money to be made cleaning up IRAQ after "we blow'd it up real good" has realized they got it wrong in the long haul.
What in the world would possess and foster the notion, that anything could benefit the US or corporate US, by rolling into IRAN ?
We got another foot of snow last night .... I'm out to shovel it.
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Does it all hang on a phrase?
« Reply #4 on: 2008-02-08 10:17:22 » |
|
Many in the upper echelons know that the world is changing and that fear all of the "bad news" being delivered by science (And they are right to fear this. According to the USDA, the world cannot sustain more than 2 billion people. My reading is that this is an exaggeration and that we will see the population reduced to under 1 billion in the medium term).
There are three typical upper echelon responses.
Rejection and Denial - We are not changing the climate, we are not running out of cheap energy, we have not destabilized the world and everything will stay the same forever - especially the fact that economies will continue to grow - forever.
Acquisition of Power - Clearly the wealthier you are the more likely you or your descendents are going to manage to be included in the 1:6 who might survive. I see the massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the top 2.5% of society as a sign that this process is accelerating whether or not it is acknowledged.
Apocalyptic Religion - From Bush & Company's belief that Jesus will take them away from the mess they have made, and the worse they make it, the faster he will come; to the 12th Imam of some Islamic sects, this insanity is unabated and the anticipation that TEOTW is at hand is growing stronger and driving people to religions that offer an escape or an excuse.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.93
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Does it all hang on a phrase?
« Reply #5 on: 2008-02-12 22:45:38 » |
|
[Hermit]
<snip>1:6 who might survive.<snip> pretty much in keeping with the plague that cleaned up Europe and solved their resource crises.
Especially when I go to work in out nations capital, these assessments are certainly echoed in what I observe going on at every level.
<snip>Rejection and Denial <snip>
<snip>Acquisition of Power <snip>
<snip>Apocalyptic Religion<snip>
I think Foresight and Science has to end up being a heading you have to include; otherwise this site and these discussions wouldn't be happening. The whole idea of Memes and Virans I think demands this fourth heading be added to your list to include the possibly dismal few, but real, actively pushing that boulder up the hill.
I did take it on myself to shew the world to the positive, so I could sleep knowing I might wake the next morning (even though it was -12 F last night).
May your Cup run'th over.
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
|
Logged
