P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18-12-07, 12:27 AM   #241
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default


Quote:
There are many other examples of failure on the part of the Democrats in both Houses. They are called weak-kneed, overly sensitive on the security issue, unable for a variety of reasons to take on the President now that they control Congress. However, there is one factor, a key indicator, that runs throughout these failures and that is the amounts of money that key Democratic Congressmen and Senators receive from the Israel Lobby. The Center for Responsive Politics, on their website www.opensecrets.org, tallies the contributions that candidates receive from what they have identified as pro-Israel PACs. Taking the Center’s list of pro-Israel PACs and adding up contributions given by those PACs to various Congressional candidates from 1979 through 2006, a remarkable fact comes through—the current Democratic leadership team in Congress has received twice as much pro- Israel PAC money as the Republicans! According to my figures, individuals serving on the current Democratic Senate leadership team have received $1,955,995 from pro-Israel PACs, whereas their Republican counterparts have received $907,585 directly from the same PACs. In the House, $469,082 has been received by the Democratic leadership team, with just $243,450 going to the Republicans. Included in these numbers are $341,037 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, $279,206 to Majority Whip Richard Durbin, and $216,100 to Democratic Outreach Chair Jeff Bingaman. In the House Speaker Pelosi has received $84,900, Steny Hoyer $140,626, and Rahm Emanuel a smaller but significant $17,000.

These figures for the Democratic leadership team do not include the amounts from pro-Israel PACs received by Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman. The same data sources indicate that Sen. Lieberman has received $344,750 from these PACs since 1979. In 2005-2006 the same individuals who gave money to the pro-Israel PACs also contributed directly to Sen. Lieberman an additional $900,000, minimum, in helping him get reelected as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary. And it hardly needs pointing out that Lieberman, by agreeing to caucus with the Senate Democrats, has enormous leverage over issues of his choosing in that body. At the top of his agenda, of course, is U.S. Middle East policy.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._money__es.htm
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-08, 06:38 AM   #242
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

It’s crazy, but it’s coming soon – from the same folks who brought us Iraq.

Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox – in the form of air and missile attacks – begin.

This time it will be largely the Air Force’s show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.

Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:

“We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House.”

Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?

A member of Olmert’s delegation noted that same day that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that “the meetings focused on ‘operational matters’ pertaining to the Iranian threat.” So bring ‘em on!

A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the U.S. or Israel?

You say you missed Olmert’s account of what Bush has undertaken to do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges for including the quote in his article of June 8, “The Iran Trap.”

We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert’s confident words about “Israel’s best friend” that week. Your attention – like mine – may have been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding administration misrepresentations of pre-Iraq-war intelligence – the so-called “Phase II” investigation (also known, irreverently, as the “Waiting-for-Godot Study”).

Better late than never, I suppose.

Oversight?

Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years, and that is what passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president and their courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could assert that fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could sum it up succinctly:

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this sinking feeling that in five or six years time, those of us still around will be listening to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more disastrous attack on Iran.

My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the invasion of Iraq, about the warping of intelligence. And our memoranda met considerable resonance in foreign media.

We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now.

In a same-day critique of Colin Powell’s unfortunate speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle of advisers “beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about intelligence, the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence analysis at the CIA.

Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former Marine major, Scott Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But none of us could get past the president’s praetorian guard to drop a memo into his in-box, so to speak. Nor can we now.
The “Iranian Threat”

However much the same warnings are called for now with respect to Iran, there is even less prospect that any contrarians could puncture and break through what former White House spokesman Scott McClellan calls the president’s “bubble.”

By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff continue to control the flow of information to the president.

But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the far-reaching disaster an attack on Iran would bring?

Well, this is a president who admits he does not read newspapers, but rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos Cheney does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers.

This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as liberators, since the planning does not include – officially, at least – any U.S. boots on the ground.

Besides, even on important issues like the price of gasoline, the performance of the president’s staff has been spotty.

Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

“Wait, what did you just say?” the president interrupted. “You’re predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?…That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.”

A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans were expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in late February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at the media briefing the day before the president’s press conference.

Here’s the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared.

The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between St. Helena’s High School and Mount St. Ursula.
Cheney’s Brainchild
Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick Cheney’s brainchild, if that is the correct word.

Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a senior State Department official at the time.

Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time around Pentagon officials reportedly are insisting on a “policy decision” regarding “what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks,” according to Carpenter.

Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the critical U.S. supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce and the eventual possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice between ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use, “mini-nukes.”

Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007 commentary by former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the “fear of the military leadership” that Iran would have “escalation dominance” in any conflict with the U.S.

Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson indicated that “escalation dominance” means, “in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs.”

The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the National Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior Pentagon officials.

...more
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-06-08, 08:02 AM   #243
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Bombings and missile attacks are one thing, but as I've always maintained, an invasion by ground troops cannot succeed and thus will not be attempted.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-06-08, 10:33 AM   #244
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

What makes you think bombings and missile attacks are going to succeed?

All I can see it succeeding in doing is making another huge foreign policy blunder.
There is much more important operations in Afghanistan needed, before you start doing something stupid like that.You already have some rouge elements in Pakistan attacking border regions,

Quote:
Pakistani soldiers, 'infiltrated and influenced' by Taliban militants, are joining in attacks on Western coalition forces, a newspaper reported Sunday quoting classified US documents.

The Observer quoted US 'after-action' reports to say Pakistan's Frontier Corps have launched direct attacks on the Afghan army and US-led coalition forces.

The reports, compiled after clashes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, are regarded as deeply sensitive by the Pentagon, the newspaper said.

It quoted unnamed people familiar with the material as saying there were 'box loads' of such reports at US bases along the length of the Pakistan-Afghan border.

The documents also detail attacks launched so close to Frontier Corps outposts that Pakistani cooperation with the Taliban is assumed.

The Observer quoted NATO spokesman James Appathurai as saying: 'The real concern is that the extremists in Pakistan are getting safe havens to rest, recuperate and retool in Pakistan and come across the border. The concerns have been conveyed to the Pakistan authorities.'

It quoted a source familiar with the situation on the ground as saying, 'The reality is that there are units so opposed to what the coalition is doing and so friendly to the other side that when the opportunity comes up they will fire on Afghan and coalition troops. And this is not random. It can be exceptionally well co-ordinated.'

The paper said members of the Frontier Corps personnel have in the past been implicated in murdering US and Afghan officers. Last year, a Frontier Corps member 'assassinated' Major Larry J. Bauguess during a border mediation meeting.
.. Don't you think it would be huge strategic blunder to attack Iran without waiting until the Afghan situation has been sorted out a little more ?

Also at the moment you run the risk of having China backing Iran because of it's investment there.
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-08, 01:06 PM   #245
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi View Post
What makes you think bombings and missile attacks are going to succeed?
I didn't say they would. My point was that invasion won't be tried because there's so much risk involved, though missile attacks may be tried because there's little to no risk.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-08, 03:45 AM   #246
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

little to no risk to who exactly?
are you just thinking of the US ground forces that have been dying at about 1500 a year for the last five years?

surely you can't be serious , no long term consequences at all ?
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-08, 07:01 AM   #247
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

There's no risk to a soldier who pushes a button and launches a missile 500 miles away from his target.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-08, 03:30 PM   #248
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,216
Default

Oh ffs it'll be a bombing attack; no missile can carry the big ground penetrators and bunker busters needed, and wtf are ground pounders going to do? Dig into the facilities with shovels? The goal is to destroy nuclear processing facilities; nothing more. Iran will have the next move.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-08, 12:44 AM   #249
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

what about the people in the area after the facility has been destroyed?
an attack like this could change diplomatic relations in the world for decades if not forever
it really could backfire in so many ways it's not funny, that's if it goes ahead
hopefully common sense will prevail
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-08, 12:54 AM   #250
Šiego
Alpha Stoner
 
Šiego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: www.naphoria.com
Posts: 5,121
Default

Common sense? You're talking about Christian Fundamentalists attacking Muslim Fundamentalists. Common sense isn't allowed.


Š
__________________

   There's only one way off so you might as well enjoy the ride..
________________________________________________________

Naphoria - P2P Portal www.naphoria.com/chat

Napsterites mIRC v2 | Napsterites Chat
Šiego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-08, 06:49 AM   #251
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

LoL
Diplomatic resolution to this problem isn't impossible ,though they would have us think otherwise.
N.Korea is destroying it's nuclear facilities all by itself.

Bush seems pretty committed to make sure the Christian Fundamentalist 'end time' becomes a reality
Provoking Muslims for just long enough now at the behest of the Israel lobby, like poking a caged animal with a stick ... something like this should be just enough to break the the camels crack... i mean back.
Like every other act in the so called 'war on terrorism' it will been designed to promote more hate on both sides, with more fake WMD ,and plenty more propaganda based on falsified intelligence reports

Israel Rehearses Iran Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6xApA38InA
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-08, 05:46 AM   #252
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

You can't talk sense to bullys.
You have to stand up to them at what ever cost.
Now we all have to decide which side is the bully.
That's a touch call.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-08, 04:55 PM   #253
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi View Post
LoL
Diplomatic resolution to this problem isn't impossible ,though they would have us think otherwise.
Well what is the diplomatic solution o' wise pothead?


Quote:
N.Korea is destroying it's nuclear facilities all by itself.
Is that so?

Is a cooling tower really a "nuclear facility"?

Maybe you just don't know wtf you're talking about.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-08, 08:52 PM   #254
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated.

The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.

The new evidence of possible fraud has increased pressure within the IAEA secretariat to distance the agency from the laptop documents, according to a Vienna-based diplomatic source close to the IAEA
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2021