It's all about protecting the Israelis.....

Oil, Regime change & strategic dominence in the region are all
important too -- but somewhat of red herrings, even though they might
have some "fringe benefits" as long as the masses don't get incensed !!

But the masses *are* going to get incensed -- very incensed.....

It's gonna be a long horrible messy assymetrical war of attrition to
the very bitter end -- even long after the nukes stop flying !

Many hundreds of millions (if not billions) will die -- & the entire
Middle East will become a huge toxological radioactvie nuclear waste
dump.......

HOOROO

UNCLE WALLY

---0---

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:59:42 -0500, "\(Arcanus - UOSanctuary.com\)"
<LegeJ@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was why we voted this idiot in
office all along. I'm suprised so many "Christians" voted for him when it
was obvious to the "little people" that this is what was up his sleeve the
whole time. He said that GOD told him to start this war, but yet he dont
even think about the armageddon he's begun.

Can't seem to explain it myself. The guy is a sick *****. He and I
obviously don't have the same "God" either if he believes that God
is on his side.. my God would spit at him - and I'm Catholic!

Sorry. But just remember that half of us Americans did NOT vote for
the dolt.

Dani

Someone had to 'become' the bringer of WAR.

GOD told that TRUMPET kid to blow his horn to bring down the walls
of Jericho.

Imagine where the world would be NOW, if he hadn't blown that HORN
???

:- |



"(Arcanus - UOSanctuary.com)" <LegeJ@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WBV_f.3521$zh1.2063@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was why we voted this

idiot in

office all along. I'm suprised so many "Christians" voted for him

when it

was obvious to the "little people" that this is what was up his

sleeve the

whole time. He said that GOD told him to start this war, but yet

he dont

even think about the armageddon he's begun.



"K Miller" <miller#k@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5eF_f.2964$%U2.197974@news20.bellglobal.com...

Simple 'Smoke Screening'.

Every Postman knows; "Its the Dog with NO BARK", that is the one
that should be FEARED the MOST !!!

Food For Thought [ or should I say : "Postal Snacks for the low
lying Doberman." ] ???

:-)


"The Last 2444 DaysT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message
news:1144723227.893796.101350@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

From the Global Research website:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20PE20060410&articleId=2247

Bush's "Nuclear Option"


by Evan Augustine Peterson III

April 10, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

Just in case you've gotten the impression that the Bush
administration
isn't seriously considering a military strike against Iran using
both
conventional and nuclear weapons, see the Amercan Progress

Action

Fund's 4-10-06 Progress Report, "The Nuclear Option." You can

read

it
below or at:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053

On the brighter side, there are limits to the U.S. military's
loyalty
to Mr. Bush, and high-ranking American military officers have

stated

that they are adamantly opposed to the use of bunker-buster

tactical

nuclear weapons (i.e., so-called "mini-nukes"). Moreover,

British

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has publicly stated that the idea

of a

nuclear strike against Iran is "completely nuts."

Additionally, the Bush administration has only presented

alarmist

rhetoric, whereas they haven't presented any credible evidence.
Hence,
American politicians and journalists should be openly

questioning

the
reliability of the intelligence behind the Bushites' allegations
that:
(1) a "nuclear crisis" exists vis-à-vis Iran; (b) Tehran is

actively

seeking a "nuclear weapons program"; and (c) Iran is somehow

capable

of
"posing an imminent threat" to the USA and the UK with its
non-existent
phantom nukes.

Finally, we should be deeply skeptical about the legitimacy of

the

Bush
administration's casus belli, because: (a) we know that the
war-profiteering neocons prefer their illegal "Bush Doctrine of
Preemptive War" to the civilized pursuit of diplomatic and

juridical

solutions; (b) we have every reason to believe that a

conventional

aerial strike against Iran would quickly escalate into a

regional

war
with global terrorist blowback; and (c) their plan for a nuclear
strike
against Iran is "completely nuts," insofar as it would be both a
monstrous war crime and a humanitarian disaster of the first
magnitude.

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.is Executive Director American
Center
for International Law ("ACIL")

------------------------------------------------------------------

--

------------

IRAN

The Nuclear Option

Amercan Progress Action Fund

Senior Bush administration officials are considering plans for a
massive bombing campaign in Iran to prevent the country from
developing
nuclear weapons, according to several recent accounts, including

two

this weekend by the Washington Post and Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist Seymour Hersh. Current U.S. plans also call for the

use

of
nuclear weapons to destroy suspected underground weapons

facilities,

which would mark the first use of such weapons in 61 years.

Former

intelligence officials quoted by Hersh describe the planning as
"enormous," "hectic" and "operational," though U.S. officials

sought

yesterday to play down the activities as "normal defense and
intelligence planning." The truth is, there is no good military
solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse. And while there are
military
options, each carries with it grave risks that threaten to

undermine

U.S. national security interests at home and abroad while

actually

speeding up Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

HIGH-RANKING MILITARY OFFICIALS THREATENING TO RESIGN OVER NUKE
PLANS:
"There are very strong sentiments within the military against
brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," says one
former
Pentagon adviser. Indeed, Hersh writes, the matter "may soon

reach a

decisive point," because the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- a panel of

the

highest-ranking military officials from each major branch of the
U.S.
armed services -- "had agreed to give President Bush a formal
recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to

considering

the nuclear option for Iran." Hersh reiterated this point

yesterday:

"One thing about our military, they're very loyal to the

president,

but they're getting to the edge. They're getting to the edge

with

not only Rumsfeld, but with Cheney and the President." (Watch

video

of
Hersh.) British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also warned this
weekend
against a nuclear strike, calling the idea "completely nuts."

"The

reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an
infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it," he
said.

COSTS OF WAR: IRAN TERROR FORCE 'MAKES AL QAEDA LOOK LIKE
KINDERGARTEN': A recent Washington Post report noted "a growing
consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the

United

States, Europe and elsewhere" if attacked; planning for such a
response
"is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence
apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue,"

another

said.
Former U.S. counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke stated

recently

that
Iran would be likely to respond to an attack with a

three-pronged

terrorist assault: "terrorism by Hezbollah, which they own and
operate
as a subsidiary; terrorism in Iraq, where they have tens of
thousands
of militia under their control; and terrorism by their special
forces
call the Kudz Force, that in the past blew up the American Air

Force

base at Khobar. All three of these organizations make al Qaeda

look

like a kindergarten." Clarke concluded, "We've thought about
military
options against Iran off and on for the last 20 years and

they're

just not good because you don't know what the end game is."

COSTS OF WAR: AIR STRIKE WOULD 'ALMOST CERTAINLY SPEED UP'

IRANIAN

NUKE
PROGRAM: A military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would

not

likely delay the program, but "almost certainly speed it up," as
occurred after the 1981 Israeli preemptive strike on Iraq's

nuclear

facilities. After the Israeli strike, with its nuclear ambitions
fully
exposed, Iraq stepped up its weapons development dramatically,
according to Iraqi defector Khadir Hamza. "At the beginning we

had

approximately 500 people working, which increased to 7,000

working

after the Israeli bombing," he said. According to Carnegie

Endowment

nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, "the bombing set back
Israel
more than Iraq" by further harming its international reputation
while
"making Iraq appear a victim of Israeli aggression." Similar
dynamics
are at play in the current impasse with Iran.

COSTS OF WAR: 'WHAT WILL 1.2 BILLION MUSLIMS THINK THE DAY WE

BOMB

IRAN?': A report published in February by the Oxford Research

Group

determined "that attacks on Iranian facilities, most of which

are in

densely populated areas, would be surprise ones, allowing no

time

for
such evacuations or other precautions," and thus leading to

hundreds

or
thousands of civilian casualties. Moreover, planners also

currently

debating launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace,

which

could "exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world."

Analysts

fear a military strike would "rally the Iranian public around an
otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around

the

Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position

in

Iraq." As one former Pentagon advisor asked Seymour Hersh, "What
will
1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

A NUCLEAR REGIME CRISIS, NOT A NUCLEAR WEAPONS CRISIS: The
"consensus
among U.S. intelligence agencies" is that Iran is "about a

decade

away"
from acquiring a nuclear weapon, meaning that the situation

today is

"not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis." The

Bush

administration's Iran strategy should reflect this reality. The
first
priority of U.S. officials should be to form a strong global

front

to
demand that Iran curb its nuclear ambitions or risk further
international isolation. Iran's latest actions -- demanding that

the

U.N. Security Council stop investigating its nuclear program and
announcing it will not abide by the Security Council's directive
that
it cease uranium enrichment -- have helped unite the

international

community; new reports of the Bush administration's aggressive

war

planning will likely reverse that tide. Also, the United States
should
come to the table and engage Iran directly in bilateral talks

over

its
nuclear program, an option it has consistently rejected despite
numerous opportunities. As Council on Foreign Relations expert

Ray

Takeyh notes, current U.S. policy "of relentlessly threatening

Iran

with economic coercion and even military reprisals only empowers
reactionaries and validates their pro-nuclear argument." A "more
adroit
American diplomacy could still dissuade Tehran from crossing the
nuclear threshold" by persuading Iranian pragmatists of the many
benefits of abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

SHOW US THE INTEL: "Fortunately, we know more about Iran's

nuclear

program now than we ever knew about Iraq's," Cirincione writes.

But

we don't know nearly enough. Following a briefing last week on

Iran

intelligence, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking minority member

of

the
House Intelligence Committee, said, "I remain skeptical - lots

of

unanswered questions." As we learned the hard way in Iraq,
intelligence
about Iran's nuclear development is key to determining the
appropriate
policy -- and facts are already being manipulated. At a recent
meeting
of the International Atomic Energy Association, for example, "US
officials called several journalists to tell them that in the
briefing
IAEA officials were 'shocked,' 'astonished,' 'blown-away' by

Iran's

progress on gas centrifuges." In fact, nuclear experts reported

that

"IAEA officials have said they were not surprised by Iran's
actions,"
prompting one IAEA official to say the U.S. statements came

"from

people who are seeking a crisis, not a solution." As Cirincione
advises, "The key now is to get all this information on the

table

for
an open debate. ... An accurate and fully understood assessment

of

the
status and potential of Iran's nuclear program is the essential
basis
for any policy."

------------------------------------------------------------------

--

------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect

those of

the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research

articles in

their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet
sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original

CRG

article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print

or

other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:

which

has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner.

We
are making such material available to our readers under the
provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site

is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you

wish

to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you

must

request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at
Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries:

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20PE200604

10&articleId=2247