PDA

View Full Version : EX C.I.A. officer: Iran WAR SOON



strongman shelford
23rd June 2008, 21:18
is this guy serious?



http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_25603.shtml



Former CIA officer Ray McGovern says President Bush and his ally, Israel, will likely attack Iran in 'late summer or early fall'. "A perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall," McGovern, who served as a Central Intelligence Agency officer under seven US presidents in a period of 27 years, wrote in an editorial published by Antiwar.com.

McGovern added that an agreement had been reached between the US and Israel 'at the highest level', claiming that 'planners, plotters and pilots' have begun work on the details of an aerial military attack against the oil-rich country.

His remarks came shortly after Pentagon officials told The New York Times that Israel had carried out a large-scale military maneuver in early June which appeared to be a rehearsal for 'a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear sites'.

McGovern also claimed that the main reason an attack has not yet been launched on Iran is the opposition of senior military officers, the numbers of whom are currently dropping due to White House efforts.

pkrebaum
23rd June 2008, 23:45
Foreign news media thinks so ..... an 80 - 90% probability by year's end.

Don't expect much from our MSM until after its already happened, and even then it will be cast in a favorable light as "necessary".

Of course, it would mean $400/bbl. oil..... but also $50 - $100 Silver.

I read that Saudi Arabia had plans to up production by 2 million bbls./day within 2 years. Just enough to replace Iran's output when it's taken offline. It would be logical to wait a bit for new supply to come online ..... but perhaps it's more logical (for those at the top who are heavily invested in oil) to gouge the public with $400 oil.

balou2
24th June 2008, 00:28
MANY sources are stating that this is a strong possibility. At this point, there is so much wrong with this world, it does no good pining over it until it happens. Continue on with your regularly scheduled programs...buy PM.

amadeus
24th June 2008, 17:42
We've been "about to attack Iran" for years now. Nothing new.

Bush won't do it because it would be the equivalent of flushing the upcoming election down the toilet for the republican party (unless Iran struck first, but they're not *that* stupid, and have no real reason to since doing so would legitimize an attack on them and they damn well know it).

strongman shelford
24th June 2008, 17:44
The rumor is that Israel will make the first move, not Bush.

rumors are getting wild!

amadeus
24th June 2008, 17:47
The rumor is that Israel will make the first move, not Bush.

rumors are getting wild!

Doesn't matter, joining their illegal preemptive strike would have them same effect as if Bush started it himself.

strongman shelford
24th June 2008, 18:00
"I will do anything in my power to avoid Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Anything"
Barack Obama - 2008

Today El Baradei saying "Iran could make a nuclear bomb in 6 months


http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/06/el_baradei_iran.php

hiyosilver
24th June 2008, 23:50
hmmm, the thoughts may be different if someone, somehow made it look like Iran made the first strike move....wouldn't that be right up the administrations alley to pull off something like that?

pkrebaum
25th June 2008, 07:34
HIYO,

You mean like the "attack" on the USS Pueblo ?

amadeus
26th June 2008, 00:39
HIYO,

You mean like the "attack" on the USS Pueblo ?

Or kinda like those great artistic renditions of "mobile chemical weapons labs" filled to the brim with WMDs that Saddam surely without any doubt had rolling all over the Iraqi desert.

amadeus
26th June 2008, 00:41
"I will do anything in my power to avoid Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Anything"
Barack Obama - 2008

Today El Baradei saying "Iran could make a nuclear bomb in 6 months


http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/06/el_baradei_iran.php

Well it's more likely he will respect the scope of his powers unlike Bush. Only Congress can legally declare war.

Don't read past the word "could" too quickly. The US "could" nuke Iran (and the entire middle east, or any given country) out of existence on a whim. Should we be punished for having this capacity?

pkrebaum
26th June 2008, 08:56
"The US "could" nuke Iran (and the entire middle east, or any given country) out of existence on a whim. Should we be punished for having this capacity?"
-amadeus

Somehow the irony of all this (Iran becoming a member of the Nuclear Club) fails to sink in........ we are, after all, the ONLY nation to actually use a nuclear weapon (or two...) against a population.

amadeus
26th June 2008, 17:58
Somehow the irony of all this (Iran becoming a member of the Nuclear Club) fails to sink in........ we are, after all, the ONLY nation to actually use a nuclear weapon (or two...) against a population.

Too true... so we know the effects firsthand, which is probably why we're so afraid of anyone else who we're not on good terms with acquiring the technology.

We brought it upon ourselves. Had we never invented it (or at least invented it and made it NOT globally known), nobody else may have ever gotten it to begin with... or at least not so soon (it's still a relatively new tech in the grander scheme of history).

Had we had any brains we would have kept it to ourselves as an absolute *last resort secret defense tech* for desperate situations like say the Japanese/Nazi's were about to actually start landing ground troops on US mainland soil...

Considering our position in WW2 when we dropped the bombs really it was a bit unnecessary... sure it more or less caused an immediate surrender... but at a terrible and unfathomable cost considering we were pretty much winning and would have forced it anyways...

In fact this is why Bush will probably never be prosecuted for war crimes, simply because president Truman set a terrible precedent of committing one of the worst war crimes in history by authorizing the use of not only one but TWO nuclear bombs both on separate but highly populated areas... both of which are still suffering its effects to this very day and still will well into the foreseeable future.... yet was considered a "hero" in the end for forcing an immediate surrender.

You think the torture at Guantanamo Bay is bad? How about radiation poisoning. And if you live through that and have kids, they are born deformed/mutated/pretty much sick-for-life. And if they have kids the cycle continues... so on and so forth... Talk about torture...

Which bring me right back to why we are so afraid... it is because of the enduring torture we know results from the use of a nuclear weapon.

Some will try to give Obama flack for saying he is willing to meet and talk with the resident of Iran. To me, doing so would be the most intelligent thing to do. It's pretty hard to get on good terms with a country whose leader you won't even give the time of day to meet with and talk to DIRECTLY. Bush (and any republicans OR democrats who support indirect "communication" with the Iranian regime) are downright backstabbing cowards for refusing to face Iran's leadership DIRECTLY.

Why do you think they are so hesitant to cooperate with us?!?!?! We are basically in a process of constantly snubbing them and talking trash (rhetoric) behind their backs while sending intermediaries (read: lowly diplomats) to try and get them to do what we want. ...and in reality the it's not behind their backs because of the media. Rhetoric accomplishes nothing. Face to face meeting and direct dialogue are the only way to accomplish anything at all, even if only in small steps...

You can't solve your problems unless you FACE THEM DIRECTLY. So far Obama is the only one who has the potential to speak for this country and who is willing to do so on the Iranian front by openly and directly facing them PERSONALLY. This is one of the many reasons I support him. I feel McCain would simply be an extension of the Bush policy of gross negligence, relying on diplomats to talk while speaking only rhetoric at home to the media. Complete BS.

I guess my point here is that the Iranian situation is, in reality, only being made worse by the spineless fools who decide and/or execute our current foreign policy.

Really it's not even a partisan issue, it's a matter of integrity and having the ability to face your problems directly and personally (and by personally on the level of a nation, I mean by it's leader to take personal responsibility) to solve them as best you can. That's how you're taught to deal with your problems as a kid and really I feel it holds true in all facets of life, from the average Joe up to the highest levels of international relationships. It's often not easy. It's often not quick. But it's the only truely effective way to get anything constructive for both sides of the situation at least partially resolved on amicable terms.

Obama has no foreign policy experience? Bullshit. What foreign policy experience did Bush have?

Perhaps Obama does not directly, but in his expression of a willingness to personally and directly meet with Iranian leadership, he has shown he knows how to at least go about tacking issues effectively, whether they are foreign or domestic. He will (like any president ever has had) have advisors to help him on the fine points.

I will stop my rambling (for) now...