What the future holds, peoplez ?!??!?

Many of these web news articles/blogs/comments/
opinions/viewpoints all point in the same
direction !!!

What the future holds, peoplez ?!??!?

Many of these web news articles/blogs/comments/opinions/viewpoints
all point in the same direction !!!

& it ain't a pretty future outlook for the human race !

HOOROO

UNCLE WALLY

====0====



http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/02/08/p14335





02/08/07
05:57:59 am, Categories: Voices, 1500 words
The Gulf of Sneezes
Jeffrey Steinberg


A survey of senior U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic
specialists confirms that the Bush-Cheney Administration is presently
on a course towards provoking a military confrontation with Iran
sometime before the end of the Spring of 2007. Were such a lunatic
provocation to go unchecked in the immediate days and weeks ahead, the
planet would be plunged into perpetual war, and financial and economic
chaos, that could take generations to undo. One certain consequence of
a U.S.-provoked war with Iran would be the total destruction of the
United States as the sovereign republic of the Founding Fathers, and
the demonization of the U.S.A. in the eyes of what might remain of the
population of the rest of the world.


[More:]

The simplest and most elegant way to stop this madness is for Vice
President ***** Cheney, the thug-in-chief of this Persian Gulf war
drive, to be forced out of office this month. As of this writing, four
separate House resolutions are being offered, to prevent military
action against Iran without prior Congressional deliberation and full
authorization. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) has a similar resolution in
the Senate. The weakness of all of these well-intentioned efforts,
however, is that none specify that an act of war against Iran, without
prior Congressional authorization, would constitute an impeachable
offense by both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Under the
present conditions of Bush-Cheney Executive branch madness and
intransigence, only such blunt language, backed up by a clear
commitment to act, could contribute to actual war avoidance.

It is an open secret that growing legions of leading Republican
strategists and financial angels are coming to the conclusion that
Cheney has to go-or else the GOP may not survive the 2008 election
cycle. Increasingly, according to sources close to the Bush family,
there is despair that the President is incapable of facing the reality
that ***** Cheney has been the source of every policy fiasco of the
past six years, and that Cheney's timely departure is the only "exit
strategy" available to Dubya, if he wishes not to go down in history
as the worst American President of all time. As of this writing, the
President is the runaway leading contender for that dubious
distinction.

A `Sneeze' Can Start a War

Military and intelligence sources with decades of experience in the
Persian Gulf have warned EIR that once the second U.S. naval carrier
group, led by the USS Stennis, arrives in the Persian Gulf sometime in
the second half of February, there will be such a concentration of
American and Iranian naval equipment in that narrow area, that "a
sneeze" could start a conflagration. By "sneeze," these experts meant
that naval commanders-American and Iranian-at the tactical level,
operating in close quarters in poorly defined border areas of the
Gulf, could carry out provocative actions that trigger a general war-
without necessarily intending to do so.

According to one retired Persian Gulf commander, prior to the 1991
"Operation Desert Storm," no U.S. carrier groups were deployed into
the Persian Gulf, precisely because the danger of blundering into a
war was considered too great to justify the risk. Large-scale naval
assets assigned to the Persian Gulf region were based in the Indian
Ocean and in other nearby locations as a kind of fail-safe measure.

War Has Already Been Declared

In some respects, the Bush Administration has already issued a de
facto, unconstitutional declaration of war. On Jan. 10, 2007, as
President Bush was delivering his nationwide television address,
announcing the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq, American Special Forces
commandos were raiding the Iranian consular office in the Kurdish city
of Irbil. The American soldiers arrested five Iranian officials, and
accused them of providing support to the insurgents battling American
and coalition forces in Iraq. As one retired senior American diplomat
put it, "This was an act of war" on the part of the Bush
Administration.

In his Jan. 10 speech, the President placed great emphasis on Iran's
and Syria's purported roles in backing the insurgency. The President
used a legalistic term, "material support for the insurgency," to
describe the Iranian and Syrian actions. As the actions in Irbil
demonstrated, the Bush Administration has decided to take a direct and
aggressive approach to Iran's presence inside Iraq-regardless of the
actual level of proof of Iran's involvement in backing insurgents and
providing military hardware. According to some sources, Iranian
Revolutionary Guard assets may have been engaged inside Iraq in
provocative actions against the American and coalition occupation
forces. But by refusing to engage in any kind of diplomatic efforts,
and by highlighting Iran's longstanding presence inside neighboring
Iraq, the Bush-Cheney Administration has adopted a willful plan to, in
effect, back into a full-scale war against Iran.

Since the President's Jan. 10 speech and the "act of war" in Irbil,
other provocative actions by the Bush Administration have piled up. On
Jan. 31, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. Air Force is
increasing patrols along the Iran-Iraq border, aimed at cutting off
the flow of arms and Revolutionary Guard operatives into Iraq. The
combination of these intensified border sorties, which could result in
strikes against Iranian territory, and the U.S. naval buildup in the
Gulf, have many people worried. The Times quoted an unnamed American
military officer: "A mistake could be made and you could end up in
something that neither side ever really wanted, and suddenly it's
August 1914 all over again." He gave a barely hypothetical example: "A
boat crosses a line . . . but what does it mean? You've got to be very
careful about overreacting."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was equally blunt in an interview
with CNN on Jan. 31, when he said, "We have told the Iranians and the
Americans, `We know that you have a problem with each other, but we're
asking you, please, solve your problems outside of Iraq.' We do not
want the American forces to take Iraq as a base to attack Iran. . . .
We will not accept Iran using Iraq to attack American forces. But does
this exist? It exists and I assure you it exists."

WMD Gambit Dropped

According to one senior U.S. intelligence official, White House "spin
doctors" concluded late last year that the Administration had been so
discredited by the fraudulent claims about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction stockpiles, that no one would buy into a war against Iran
on the basis of Administration claims that the Islamic Republic was on
the verge of fielding nuclear weapons. At that time, the official
rhetoric of Bush and Cheney shifted to an emphasis on Iran's
interference in American counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. While the
White House has so far failed to provide any detailed evidence that
Iran is behind the escalating insurgency, the temperature of the
Administration rhetoric has jumped to a fever pitch. Recently, the
President acknowledged that he issued an intelligence finding in
Autumn 2006, authorizing American forces in Iraq to target Iranian
assets inside Iraqi territory.

On Jan. 20, five American soldiers were killed in a sophisticated
attack, by armed men disguised as Iraqi security officers, who spoke
English. The Bush Administration has blamed the incident on Iran,
claiming that Iraqi Shi'ite insurgents are not sophisticated enough on
their own, to have carried out such an attack. Yet the Bush
Adminstiration has still not released its long-promised report about
Iranian involvement, and the latest National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) says essentially that other countries are not responsible for
what's going on inside Iraq. The readiness of the Bush Administration
to jump to conclusions about the Iranian hand behind every significant
insurgent action just underscores the war fever that has spread around
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It is in this context that the pending arrival of a massive new
American naval force into the Persian Gulf represents the potential
for what one senior retired U.S. Marine officer called a "Gulf of
Tonkin II" nightmare.

A Unilateral Strike

The naval buildup also will soon put the United States in the position
of being able to launch significant strikes against Iran without
relying on any Persian Gulf states to provide basing or overflight
support. It is no secret that the Iranian government has warned all of
the major states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi
Arabia, that any support for an American attack on Iran will be met
with a serious irregular warfare response. Kuwait and Bahrain, two GCC
states with significant U.S. Air Force presence, are highly vulnerable
to such Iranian-directed asymmetric warfare, given the sizeable
Shi'ite minorities in both countries.

In recent days, Iran and Saudi Arabia have exchanged diplomatic
missions, clearly aimed at avoiding a confrontation.

However, the pending arrival of the USS Stennis in the waters of the
Persian Gulf will soon trump all of those efforts. Given the
unpredictable situation in Tehran, nothing short of decisive action-
the removal of Vice President Cheney-can assure the world that a
"sneeze" will not start World War III.

-###-

February 8, 2007 This article appears in the February 9, 2007 issue of
Executive Intelligence Review.

1 Voice
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: jpolapop [Member]
Sorry this is an automated text reply as I've gone to make
preparations for the up and coming major event 'Operation AWE II'. I
should be available once I have re-located outside of the Western
Front.
02/08/07 @ 16:54

==================================