I don't really think they need to encourage an attack to create the excuse for bombing Iran.

Those who would attack would have enough excuses anyway.

Incidentally, conspiracy types. If this is all a big plan full of deception and dirty tricks (by this I mean - everything) then how does the absence of WMDs fit into your thinking?
Why didn't the writers of 'the script' write in the bit where the WMDs are found?

It would have saved them a lot of criticism.

A Jordanian jihadi (and maybe his Iraqi neighbors) got blowed up good.

The dog and pony show following this strike is exuberance incarnate. Stops have been pulled out. When was the last time you saw a dead guy's face on TV? Or as little web buttons?

Prediction: over the next few weeks, security in Iraq will improve not one whit. Not one fewer IED will go off, not one city block of Baghdad outside of the green zone will become safe to cross, not one reconstruction project will proceed.

The reason: jihadis are not the insurgency. The insurgency is mainly former Iraqi army regulars who are doing what you would expect them to do when an invader knocks off the dictator and, mind-bogglingly, disbands its units. The insurgency is former Baathists, who by indoctrination and training suppressed jihadis under Hussein. The insurgency is middle-aged men who want air conditioning and refrigeration back. They lob grenades then run away to go back to their workplace.

The insurgency is anything but al-Zarqawi. Fewer suicide bombings at checkpoints is all you get on the ground after this. Such are the pathetic returns a "War On [Various Individuals]" gets you.

-r

This will totally overshadow the Hidatha ballsup.

This is hilarious to me, as though we have to have a really bad situation happening somewhere to merit disagreeing with the President's policies. Or a really good one to like him.

You know, as long as the debate is a referendum on who's in power, nothing is going to change. The debate needs a big time reframing.

In the end, both al-Zarqawi and Hidatha have fuck-all to do with the President. Both happened pretty far away from his not-so-watchful eye.

i remember a feeling i had just about the time before the last presidental election, Kerry was looking like he was going to pull it off, or at least i was feeling optimistic...point being. I read fahrenheit 451 in early high school. i was truly amazed at the level of propaganda that the society had created, the base of fear, the constant distraction of government media, anyway, i'll never forget at the end of the book when guy montag actually escapes the police while the media broadcast his capture. the extent the ruling class would go to keep the masses subdued in fear and complacency is mind numbing to say the least. so, in closing, i was expecting a last ditch effort and surprise capture of bin laden to get bush out of a pickle last election, and that didn't happen. would you put this past our current administration to create media villains? develope character, events, and overall corrupted, if not a fake history, and then televise their capture or in the case of one zarqawi their death, to cohere the public into the bad idea of iraqi occupation?

clocker bob wrote:I personally don't believe the calming waters around Iran right now.

Ok, I was going to stay out of this whole "conspiracy" deal, but this whole thing...invading Iran...is a fucking joke. I can't believe you'd actually think that the US would invade Iran. From the late 70's to now, it's obvious that whatever decisions a Bush (no matter which one) makes, in the end, they're always in the best interests of Iran.

I know A LOT of people from Iran...and I've talked to them about this again and again...and they always bring up the same fucking things:

1) It was the Iranian government that was calling the shots in 1980. Of course, we'll never fucking know since W. re-classified the Reagan papers in September 2001. They believe that Reagan/Bush cut a deal with the Iranians asking them to hold their American captives hostage through the 1980 presidential campaign. The Iranians released the hostages...fucking quick too...after Reagan was sworn in as president. And the bastard repaid the favor, illegally selling arms to them.

2) Sure, W. said that Iran was part of the "Axis of Evil"...but do you think he was talking about the ruling party?!? Hell no. At that time, Iran had a pro-Western reformist president and revolutionaries (a.k.a students) were leading weekly demonstrations. Demonstrations against the same people that were (at the time) incredibly successful in rallying the nation against what was perceived as a possible American attack. Back to square one.

3) Iran has benefited by the war against Iraq. W. got rid of Saddam Hussein...Iran’s sworn enemy...at the same time opening Iraq's borders to the Iranian-backed insurgency. All of a sudden, Iran is one of the most influential nations in mid-east, in perfect position to influence the new government in Iraq.

4) It would be fucking insane to invade Iran. Iran’s population is more than DOUBLE that of Iraq. And, unlike Iraq’s population, Iran’s population is more religious...and therefore definitely more willing to die defending their ideology.

Yeah...I don't think the fact that such a war is unwinnable would stop Bush from trying it. I think that the real reason we won’t invade Iran is that, simply put, it would be bad for Iran. And no Bush has ever done anything that was bad for Iran.

Earwicker wrote:I don't really think they need to encourage an attack to create the excuse for bombing Iran.

Those who would attack would have enough excuses anyway.

Incidentally, conspiracy types. If this is all a big plan full of deception and dirty tricks (by this I mean - everything) then how does the absence of WMDs fit into your thinking?
Why didn't the writers of 'the script' write in the bit where the WMDs are found?

It would have saved them a lot of criticism.

I figured they would have planted them after a while. I'm sure it's a colorful puzzle piece in some theory.
I have it on qualified authority Rumsfeld ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons found to keep the press from seeing that they were made in America. Then our shipment of fake mobile chemical weapons labs (the kind Powell warned us of) were redirected to Syria. By that time Iraq was already taken over, so there was no need for justification. We need to invade Syria though.
Unfortunately, the slaying of Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri of Lebanon interrupted Rumsfeld’s plan. This assassination was scheduled for much later in the summer. It was meant as a reward for Syrian dissidence leaders who were helping us smuggle the WMD labs through Lebanon, into their country. The dissidence group misbehaved, and wanted the glory of killing al-Hariri themselves. They were not interested in sitting by while the CIA melted him from space.

This winter, while I was taking classes at a technical college, one of my classmates (in his late-20's) actually said outloud that the US was occupying Iran and how Bush is a good president and keeps us safe.

Unfortuantely, we have quite a frightening percentage of the general populus who don't even pay any attention to the war and just go about their lives on low level motor impulse control and lap up news and info that is said to be "good" for them and America, and never bother to put any critical thinking to it.

Sucks.

Earwicker wrote:Incidentally, conspiracy types. If this is all a big plan full of deception and dirty tricks (by this I mean - everything) then how does the absence of WMDs fit into your thinking?
Why didn't the writers of 'the script' write in the bit where the WMDs are found?

It would have saved them a lot of criticism.

Zing!

Why not FedEx some of our own nasty shit to the desert, relabel it, and voila, smoking gun?

It seems to me there was as little delay after confirming it was indeed Zarqawi as possible. There'd have to be some delay because claiming it, and then having it not be true would just be retarded. The Iraqi government, or what passes for it, wouldn't keep that under wraps because they're despirately seeking the confidence in the public--both Iraqi, and international--and need to assert their authority, even if it's bite is an American airwing. However you view the war, you must admit that the average Joe Iraqi is tired of IED's going off all over the place, policestation bombings, and people being beheaded.

As for whether this will be used as a trump card in the 'see-we're-winning-the-war' card game: Tony Snow made it very clear this morning that this is a good thing, but the war still continues. It's a good thing because the guy was as rotten as they come--beheadings, bombing the UN embassy. It continues because, as we saw last week in Toronto, militant Islamists don't play by any rules to which we'd like to hold ourselves or anyone else accountable.

34% believe we found WMD!
http://www.pipa.org/whatsnew/html/new_6_04_03.html

SacredAndProfane wrote:The Iranians released the hostages...fucking quick too...after Reagan was sworn in as president. And the bastard repaid the favor, illegally selling arms to them.

I might be wrong here as I'm no expert but I thought the arms were sold to dissident groups that were fighting the regime. Not actually to the Iranian government.

SacredAndProfane wrote:3) Iran has benefited by the war against Iraq. W. got rid of Saddam Hussein...Iran’s sworn enemy...at the same time opening Iraq's borders to the Iranian-backed insurgency. All of a sudden, Iran is one of the most influential nations in mid-east, in perfect position to influence the new government in Iraq.

If you go with the administration are totally incompetent line of thinking this answers itself.

SacredAndProfane wrote: It would be fucking insane to invade Iran. Iran’s population is more than DOUBLE that of Iraq. And, unlike Iraq’s population, Iran’s population is more religious...and therefore definitely more willing to die defending their ideology.

I am not sure sanity is something that this administration (or our noble British ruler) should be accused of. The suggestion that it would have been insane to invade Iraq (certainly in the manner in which it was done)was made before they went and did it.

SacredAndProfane wrote:Yeah...I don't think the fact that such a war is unwinnable would stop Bush from trying it. I think that the real reason we won’t invade Iran is that, simply put, it would be bad for Iran. And no Bush has ever done anything that was bad for Iran.

But Israel has several very large strings pulling away at the Americans and Israel is not a fan of Iran.
Or are you suggesting they are secretly chums?
Or is it just that America is playing both?

Also America was once pretty good pals with Saddam.

But they fell out and America went home and took its ball.

Incidentally, I agree I don't think they will invade (though I would not put in past them (or certainly Israel) bombing them.

Though I do think with the Americans current despots pretty much anything is possible.