drew patrick wrote:Here we go again . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html

Holy fuck. I just hope all of you are skeptical when it comes to blaming the failures of the Iraq war in Iran. Iran has been in the neo cons sights for a long time. Just as they used the Spetember 11th, 2001 attacks as an excuse to go to Iraq, they will use their own failures in Iraq to blame the Iranians (and the libruls!) as an excuse to go into Iran.

Are there Iranians behind some of the violence? Probably. Does Iran benefit from this who Iraq fiasco? Yes. But do not let the administration divert your attentions away from their own bankrupt policies and failures and use it as an excuse to go there.

I am convinced now that Cheney, et al are the true enemies of the state. They would weaken our country for their own financial gain. They are possibly traitors and should be tried in a court as such.

Given that the US is having enough problems occupying two nations of 29 million each on either side of Iran, how on earth would they expect to do the same with a nation of 70 million?

Mark wrote:Given that the US is having enough problems occupying two nations of 29 million each on either side of Iran, how on earth would they expect to do the same with a nation of 70 million?

Practicality and factual analysis are not their forte.

Officials: White House Holding Back Report Detailing Iran's Meddling in Iraq

Officials had said a "dossier" against Iran compiled by the U.S. likely would be made public at a press conference this week in Baghdad, and that the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.

Now, U.S. military officials say the decision to go public with the findings has been put on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it.

Mark Hansen wrote:A friend of mine who is a commodities trader refuses to deal in oil futures, because he feels the oil markets are so manipulated.

They are. I've made the point in a number of my widely-unread posts about global finance. The huge private equity houses and the big investment banks all have symbiotic relationships with Big Oil and Big Defense Contractors, and all of them together own Big Media, and all of them together give huge sums to politicians to buy access and policy. When they can buy 100's of billions in derivatives that profit from bad news ( like wars ), and they can use their influence over governments to beat the war drums, you can see clearly the potential for abuse.

It's the equivalent of investing in orange juice futures when you also have the power to control the weather in your hands.

dipshit jigaboo wrote:Officials had said a "dossier" against Iran compiled by the U.S. likely would be made public at a press conference this week in Baghdad, and that the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.

Who will be playing Colin Powell in the blockbuster sequel? Condi is the logical choice. I really hope so, because she is a clumsy liar, but I'm afraid that Negroponte may be moving over to State Dept. to be the hype man for the Iran threat.

El Protoolio wrote:I am convinced now that Cheney, et al are the true enemies of the state. They would weaken our country for their own financial gain. They are possibly traitors and should be tried in a court as such.

You may have seen this EPT ( I posted it to a different thread earlier in the week ), but here again is the link to the 'Build Up To Iran Attack: 2000-2007' timeline compiled at Raw Story.

Axis of Evil, Incorporated

Some choice quotes from Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker at the just-completed symposium "The 'War on Terrorism': Where Do We Stand?":

"The fact of the matter is we have a government that will do what it wants to do for the next two years," he said. "The worst is yet to come. It's sort of like we're essentially powerless [and] just play it out."

"It may come down to the president making an order that the military will object to," Hersh said. "It would be devastating, but it may come down to it. My fear is that he will do what he wants."

"He's a total radical, probably the most radical president we've ever had in terms of his definition of the power of the presidency," he said. "There's nothing more dangerous than a radical who doesn't have information, doesn't learn from information and doesn't learn from the past."

Carnival of Souls wrote:Yes but I'm talking about Iran attacking first not the reverse. Do we sit around with the proverbial thumb up our ass until something happens. IF Iran does attack first what should be the reaction?

since when has Iran threatened to attack the US? who really has the nuclear weapons here? the regurgitations of the media onslaught are very telling in the case of the so-called "Iran threat". the US has 100s of thousands of troops in Iraq going insane shooting/bombing the fucking shit out of the place, and Iran has a few people skulking around blowing up a bomb or three? did Iran invade Iraq unilaterally? talk about denial. seeing shit like this on an interweb forum of a recording studio is telling in that it shows how much influence the media has in making people delimit the terms of debate surrounding AN issue or even what the issues of contention or debate even are. as they say here in australia: it's shithouse.

edited for typo

From this morning's Washington Post:

The Bush administration is warning European oil and gas companies against investing in Iran, trying to head off a push by Tehran to attract new investment by international petroleum giants.

In the past two weeks, the administration has met with European oil company executives about the Middle East, and during one session a senior State Department official cautioned that the situation with Iran was "hot and is going to get hotter," one executive said.

Hot, man. Attack on Iran is da bomb.