Resistance to an attack on Iran from within the Pentagon and possibly also the CIA is one reason why Bush has not pulled the trigger.  Another increasingly important reason, cited by Dr. Trifkovic on the Chronicles website, is the hardline stance of Russian president Putin against an attack on Iran.  Bush is a typical bully and bullies don’t like to risk antagonizing opponents who could do them real damage.

I would like to pose an interesting scenario.  Suppose Ahmedinejad capitulates and gives up enriching uranium?  What then?  Do we stop agitating for war with Iran or do we simply manufacture some other reason to start the bloodletting?
It is interesting that they have not acted already.  Perhaps another reason is that maybe they feel enough of us will finally wake up to the fact that these clowns really do not care what we think and rebel.  There have been rumors that the military leaders are ready to condemn military action against Iran.  There is still some hope and of course Kirt makes a good point that Putin is also a deterrent.  One must also ask where does China stand in all of this?  I think if there were a Russian and Chinese alliance it would certainly rival the European U.S. alliance.

I think what Kirt fails to understand is that it isn’t Bush driving this train.  Early in his administration, Bush was willing within limits to follow the advice of his father’s realist advisors including Powell.  For example, after 911, Bush called for the creation of a Palestinian state.  The real problem with Bush is that he backs down whenever the Neocons demand something form him.  There is ample evidence that Bush didn’t want to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, much less give him a pardon.  But Bush did so under intense and insulting pressure from the Neocons.  The Neocons, much less AIPAC and the other like minded types on the left (e.g., Neoliberals at the New Republic etc.) have no problem with Bush taking the heat for very unpopular policies such as war with Iraq and the possible war with Iran.  After all, Bush will be gone and the only damage will be to Bush’s Wasp family, hated by the Neocons and Neoliberals and Left alike.  The Republican party, also hated by all of these elements, including the Neocons, will also be damaged.  But why should the Neocons and their leftist allies be worried about that?  They have a stranglehold on the Democrat party and certainly nobody in the Mainstream Media will identify the Neocons or their left wing allies (AIPAC, Neoliberals) as the cause of the Iraq war and coming war with Iran.  In fact, Bush’s clumsy invocation of the threat to Israel posed by Iran seems more like a cry for help or pity than it does a rationalization of the coming war with Iran.  In other words, Bush has always been too weak to resist the pressure being put on him.  Of course Bush is responsible for his actions, but we should understand that he has chosen to be crucified in the arena of public opinion rather than face the music of those pressuring him behind the smoke screen of the mainstream media.

Mr Nucci asked, “One must also ask where does China stand in all of this?  I think if there were a Russian and Chinese alliance it would certainly rival the European U.S. alliance.”

1.  China’s central government will cheer behind the scenes for any resistance against real or perceived American hegemony
(the Chinese tend to over-estimate America’s real power), but there would be no practical advantage for them to back Iran militarily even if they were able to do so.  And they’re not able to do so.

2.  A Russian-Chinese alliance?  When hell freezes over.  Russians regard the Chinese as among their ancient enemies; Russia’s self-perceived historical role for almost a thousand years has been as the “shield of Christendom” against the South and East (even in WWII and after, Soviet propaganda portrayed the Red Army as the saviours of Europe, and there was a germ of truth in that - at least more truth in it than the posters of Hitler as a Christian crusader), and in the long run they will align themselves more and more strongly with Europe, while the European-American alliance continues to fade into extinction.

Meanwhile I TEND to think Britain will return to its pre-20th-century role as sui generis among European nations, distancing itself from America and, I think PERHAPS, drawing closer both culturally and strategically to its kindred Anglo-Saxon nations, Canada and Australia (and America is no longer really one of them, alas) - but that’s more speculative than my prediction that Russia will draw closer to Europe in the long run.

PS, a recent, obscure little story about the realities of Russian-Chinese relations:

“Chinese workers are beginning to illegally take over land around Yekaterinburg....Locals are livid. Not only are the Chinese taking over land illegally, they say, but are potentially endangering wildlife, as well as polluting the river by dumping human waste into it....Funny thing is, as the Russians don’t speak Chinese and the Chinese don’t speak any Russian, there’s no communication going on. One party doesn’t know what the other party is thinking. Which is too bad because judging by the tone of the article, the Chinese might have to host a lynching party thrown in their honor.”

http://www.exile.ru/blog/detail.php?BLOG_ID=13333&AUTHOR;_ID=

And I’m not for lynching, but if it comes down to a conflict between the Russians and their Chinese invaders, I’ll back the Russians at least in sentiment, and hope for their successful defense of their country.

Excellent article.
Putin has made it clear that Russia will not “tolerate” any animosity against Iran, whatever that means. A strong protest in the UN? Aiding Iran with more and better weapons? Nukes? From what we’ve seen this far it seems that Russia will furnish Iran with more advanced weapons. There was for instance talk of an incredible new torpedo that could go faster through water than normally possible. It did this with the aid of an air bubble it created around itself. This doesn’t sound like something the Iranians would be capable of constructing.

Angela Merkel, a former East German card carrying communist and at the same time priviledged daughter of a protestant priest is now the top hen in the economically most powerful country in Europe. Otherwise from giving to Israel five top modern submarines, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, she has made her self known for nothing but a communist slogan she uttered in the EU assembly, “No tolerance for the intolerants”. The woman is a poltroon and will go so far as she’s asked to. The final limit will be when her poltroonism conflicts with her popular support among the Germans.

France’s Sarkozy is somewhat smarter and with much more spine. However, he is Jewish, which may (or may not) influence his decisions to favour what’s good for Israel. The public opinion in France isn’t too happy about entangling France in a war with Iran.

I don’t think that Great Britain is either, never mind the rhetoric.

If the war against Iran turns out to be a punitive action, with air strikes and missiles, not including any foot soldiers, then Bush may well get all the support he wants from the Europeans, but only for a short period. Like the case with bombing Serbia.

But if a real invasion, à la Iraq, is planned, which is very unlikely, then the Americans will be on their own.

I think Mr. Smith overestimates the power of the neo-cons and their allies.  Certainly they are powerful, but if they were as powerful as Mr. Smith seems to think, why has not Iran been attacked already?  In both February and September of this year, there were strong indications that an imminent attack was averted by an actual or threatened (which amounts to the same thing) passive mutiny by high ranking armed services personnel.  There are those who think that the attack will take place on the verge of the ‘08 election to insure a Republican victory or to provide an excuse to cancel the election altogether.  The former rationale is both doubtful and unnecessary.  The neo-cons have influence in both parties and don’t need the republicans in power.  And actually cancelling the election would powerfully destabilize the neo-cons’ home power base in the US.  Why would they want to do that?

The neo-cons in name and spirit may be concerned about
the impact of a strike on the vulnerable markets. They
may be waiting for (or planning) some event that adds extra
justification to their Iranian attack.

I have to agree with Mr. Smith that Bush is mostly irrelevant and that the neo-cons would just as soon back the Democratic party anyway being politically more in line with their core beliefs even though the Republicans have come a long way toward the left, and in the case of Rudy, all the way.  I agree also with Mr. Ball that the Chinese will most likely stop short of an actual alliance with the Russians but like you say they will be hoping for disaster for the U.S. and her allies so at least sentimentaly they will be on the side of the Russians albeit by default.  The Chinese really hold a winning hand in foreign policy now because the economic interests of the west are inextricably linked to Chinese manufacturing.

My only hope is that there are high ranking officers with enough integrity to block an act that would put the US in the same class of nations as Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR, or Mao’s China.

Given our history of attacking other nations that posed no real threat and the performance of the highest ranking officers then, I won’t hold my breath.

Well, there is always the Napoleonic maxim: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

I am sure the Russians and the Chinese understand this idea and are quite content to allow the United States to blunder into the disaster that would be an attack on Iran.  Should the attack not spark World War III, then the Bears and Pandas will inherit the Earth.  We shall see.  There’s not a lot of hope these days

I read a wonderful book about Woodrow Wilson recently, actually a psychoanalysis, by Sigmund Freud.  To use Sherlock Homes’ words, “The parallel is exact,"* between Wilson and Bush, Jr.  Though it’s a bit early to speak of Bush in the past tense, I choose to do so as a form of self healing.  Both men had love/hate relationships with their daddies, both thought words more important than facts, both thought God had annointed them to be world leaders, and both were surrounded by advisers and allies who used them.  After reality set in, Wilson descended into a neurotic nightmare of blinding headaches, vomiting and diarrhea.  I eagerly await a similar ending to the Nancy Boy-in-Chief.

*The Adventure of the Empty House

I’ve long thought that the adventure in Iraq was one, last stab at greatness from a dying empire.

But, with a devalued dollar, america cannot go on like this for long. I think all things like this are a distraction. The political party must not let on that all current and future economic woes are the governments fault.

Kirt seems to be underestimating the climate of fear that has been created by the Neocons and their left wing allies.  If any Republican were to come out against a war with Iran (as Paul has) and if they were in a stronger position to win the nomination, they would be attacked by the Neocons and their left wing allies.  And said attacks wouldn’t be just about, or on the surface mainly about, the position on Iran. 

Look Kirt, Neocons were calling for a US occupation of Iraq since 1991.  That took a while but they got what they wanted.  Now, with the decline of the American economy, Neocons think they have to act now or maybe never.  They are pushing behind the scenes even more than publicly for a war with Iran.  If they don’t get it now, in the last months of the Bush term, then they will push for it once more terror attacks take place in America.  But count on it, the Neocons and their left wing allies are planning on the US going to war with Iran.  They usually get what they want.  And in the end, Bush isn’t important other than as another politician very afraid of the Neocons and their left wing allies and their power in the media. More afraid of them than of looking like a fool in the eyes of the entire world.

Apart from enforced psychiatric treatment, is there any cure for Post Holocaust Paranoia?  I’m sure this major illness plays a significant part in the rantings against Iran, and the nonsense about offending the Turks is just a fig leaf for the real problem:  Commandment Number One of the Zionist New Testament is, Thou shalt have no other holocausts other than mine.

Amazing! Our only hope is a coup by the Pentagon.

Suppose Ahmedinejad capitulates and gives up enriching uranium?  What then?

Cheney goes on Limbaugh’s Show and announces that last night Jenna Bush blew-up the Iranian captured USS Maine in the Gulf of Tonkin because it was filled with Saddam’s WMDs and was steaming towards Israel and now Jenna is missing in the warm waters of the Gulf Of Gulf Corp. and she is engaged to be married and so are we just gonna sit idly by while Jenna is prolly held captive in some dank Iranian Prison or are we going to attack Iran and liberate Jenna and all the other innocent blond engaged Christian virgins who only want to be free to marry the man of their choice?

Kirt sed: Another increasingly important reason, cited by Dr. Trifkovic on the Chronicles website, is the hardline stance of Russian president Putin against an attack on Iran.

Nucci sed: One must also ask where does China stand in all of this? I think if there were a Russian and Chinese alliance it would certainly rival the European U.S. alliance.

Don’t forget China…China has invested in Iran, and is certainly aware that the US drive to control Mideast Oil is motivated by American corporations dependent on China because of downsizing and outsourcing. The US needs to be able to “turn off the spigot” if China gets uppity.

Certainly international finance capitalism is interested in leveraging a warped American nationalism to it’s own advantage, but there are NO Jews in China and those oligarchs who haven’t left in Russia are effectively neutralized by Putin’s efforts.  So, as much as I hate to admit it, the only HOPE to stand up against American Imperialism is the Chinese Communist Party and the ex-KGB ehief of the old Soviet Union. Go figure that one out!

What with Dixiecrat evangelical nutcases like Hagee and the pimp for America’s homegrown traitors in Wall Street and among the CEO classes, tub-thumping for war, it seems that the hope of paleo-cons and Left Libertarians of the Justin Raimondo variety is their old mortal enemies in the Commie world.

It’s the world turned upside down.

One more fact may be slowing the neocons:  currently some 60-70% of Americans want troops out of Iraq either immediately or with a short delay.  Expanding the war by attacking Iran may cause this popular opposition to boil over.  If that happens, the results will not be nice—remember the Vietnam riots?

Interestingly, among committed Democratic voters the proportion of peope wanting out immediately or with a short delay is around 85%, yet none of the party’s candidates supports that position.  To my knowledge, there has never existed this kind of a gap between American voters and their representatives.

That there is such a gap between what the populace wants and what the elite is doing and going to continue to do demonstrates the difference between Public Opinion (which is manufactured by the elite) and Popular Sentiment (which reflects what the populace thinks, fells, or wants). 

That Popular Sentiment is so at odds with Public Opinion is really striking because very little in the Mainstream Media supports the view of Popular Sentiment. Typically, Public Opinion, which is made by an elite, has a huge influence, certainly in the short term, over Popular Sentiment. In this case, Public Opinion isn’t driving the dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and opposition to war with Iran.

We should also recognize that real power exits among those who have a near monopoly on the means of the production of Public Opinion.  They can in the short run, combined with events, such as a future terror attack within the United States, gin up support for a war with Iran.

If any resistance should arise to the rulers’ war-making, the state has a time-tested means of disposing of the resisters. Perhaps the classic description of this tactic was given by the Nazi bigwig Hermann Göring when he was being held in prison during the trials at Nuremberg in 1946. This account comes to us from Gustave M. Gilbert, the German-speaking prison psychologist who had free access to all of the prisoners during the trials and talked to them frequently in private. On the evening of April 18, 1946, Gilbert visited Göring in his cell, and he later described their conversation as follows:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Göring shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war.”

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. (Nuremberg Diary, pp. 278–79)

Göring was right, and matters have only become worse in this regard during the past sixty years. Under the postwar regime in the United States, of course, Congress never declares war — it has made no such declaration since June 5, 1942, when it declared war on Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary — and the president now wages war solely at his own pleasure and caprice, as if he were Caesar.

Kari Konkola’s remark reminds one that that old misanthrope Adm. Hyman Rickover believed that the United States has been, from the beginning, an oligarchy of wealth and influence hiding behind a veneer of democracy.

Let’s hope that someone explains to Shrub

a) There are no soldiers to send to Iran, unless he pulls them out of Iraq first. That, or he institutes a draft

b) While the Cat in in Iran, the mice (I mean the turks) will decide it is a good time to invade the Iraqui Kurds.

c) If he makes Putin any angrier, he may be given a does of Polonium - and Cheney too, making Pelosi the Presdient.

d) and if he makes the Chinese angry, they will play games with their currency, to remind him that they call the shots.

Adriana—good point,currencies and debt have become weapons

I read that a Mossad agent once blew the whistle on an Israeli plot to kill Bush senior because he was determined too anti-Israel for their liking.  Does anyone think Bush junior runs the country like he has a gun to his head?

First, a couple of perhaps pedantic points of factual error (hey, the devil’s in the details, right?):

“supersonic B-2 stealth bombers”

The B2 is definitely NOT supersonic ... not even close. It’s an issue of credibility, really. Obvious canards provide a toe-hold for riposte, and an excuse for dismissal of one’s more important argument.

And, rinty ...

“talk of an incredible new torpedo”

Talk? I saw a vid of said torps being launched by Iranian military personnel. The weapon in question is not new, however, but is this:

“VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket

In 1995 it was revealed that Russia had developed an exceptionally high-speed unguided underwater missile which has no equivalent in the West. Code-named the Shkval (Squall), the new weapon travels at a velocity that would give a targeted vessel very little chance to perform evasive action. The missile has been characterized as a “revenge” weapon, which would be fired along the bearing of an incoming enemy torpedo. The Shkval may be considered a follow-on to the Russian BGT class of evasion torpedoes, which are fired in the direction of an incoming torpedo to try to force an attacking [sub] to evade (and hopefully snap its torpedo’s guidance wires). The weapon was deployed in the early 1990s, and had been in service for years when the fact of its existence was disclosed.”

more: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

No doubt at all it’s Russian, and no doubt either that Russia—and China too—are trying to counterbalance US unilateralism with a not altogether convincing show of solidarity. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as the strategic saw has it, but I’m pretty sure neither of those parties is deluded as to how far they can ride on that ticket once the strategic objective of blocking US triumphalism is achieved.

But I suspect - and here we can only speculate - that Mr. Foy has put his finger very close to the heart of the matter in his last paragraph:

“Perhaps the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have quietly informed the Regent and the dauphin that this whole project to attack Iran is crazy ...”

I think that he casts too wide a net, though. The CIA is seen as part of the marketing department, the purveyors of assorted “facts” to be cherry-picked (or even fabricated from whole cloth under the aegis of their “brand") as the situation demands, while Sec. Gates is a go-along guy-for-all-seasons as near as I can see.

But the military knows its limitations even if their civilian “masters” do not. They’ve read Sun Tzu and recognize the deadly implications of believing their own BS. They know how close they are to the snapping point and are not about to follow, as it were, Napoleon (or Hitler for that matter)into the Russian winter. That, for what it’s worth, and based on nothing more than straws in the wind about Adm. Fallon’s objection to a third Carrier deployment (since accomplished in any case) and vague rumors that some pilots might refuse to fly missions into Iran, is my my particular speculation on the matter.

Also, it’s always advisable to avoid mono-causal analysis in such complex matters, so don’t forget China’s use of the term “nuclear option” in reference to sales of US assets. Terms don’t get any stronger than that in the world of diplomacy. It’s not inconceivable that Russia and China together have amassed enough economic power to turn the tables on the US and employ the Reagan strategy of economic implosion.

If they could, they would, and we in the west would be fools of the first order to fall into that trap. We badly need to stop BS-ing ourselves and I’m beginning to wonder if that’s even possible anymore. BS has become, in so many ways—mostly economic—vital to our survival.

Sorry for going on so long ...

So here’s the real deal::
We bomb Iran, the Persians will greet us as liberators. It will be a cakewalk, They will raise the Israeli Flag in Tehran. Cheney will take the 21 gun salute. Hey Hey Hey!
With Bunker Busters we’ll get their WMD’s where we know they are not hidden.
Then we will declare mission accomplished, and Iranians will surrender , hey hey hey!
Get Bill Orrally to deal with surrender monkey talk:
What might actually Happen:
Day one: Iran launches 11,000 missiles, hiting every US base in middle east and 1,ooo missiles hit Tel aviv. straits of Hormuz shut down with sunk tankers.
Day Two: US army bases all over Iraq being hit 24/7, no way out!
Karzai overthrown, Taliban overrun Nato forces.
Coup in Pakistan, declares US a hostile state. Mush escapes to retire on farm in crawford next to Schrub.
Aicraft carriers hit.
GPS systems go dead.
Chinese premier makes phone call.
Oil price $559 per barrel.
War on terror declared officially over by Key US allies.
Dow Jones hits 33.

Schrub goes “missing and endangered”

Darf Wader pace maker fails.

AIPAC wherabouts unknown.

Dear Straws,

Thanks for the the factual correction re speed of the B-2 Bomber. It appears that being invisible beats being faster. Speed of B-2 equals 475 mph. Supersonic is 750 + mph. Employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, flying out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, the B-2 and its two man crew had to fly over 30 hours to the target and back, according to Wikipedia. You see what that accomplished.

Patrick

Patrick Foy’s is the best article I’ve read about Iran’s and Ahmadinejad’s imbroglio. Finaly, somebody has guts to tell it like it is. Strange how we all seem to be part of some underground circle which reminds of Semizdat- in this Land of the Free -of ours.( This article of Foy’s should have been on the first pages of our newspapers if the U.S. were really a free country).
I tend to agree completely with Joe Smith’s comments that Bush is only a cowardly stooge in the hands of our Zio-Cons and that his ‘decisions’ are subject to be overruled any time this Gang becomes displeased. (Who can ever forget how quickly he declared Sharon ‘Man of Peace’ after criticizing him meekly for his pogroms of the Palestinians?).
To answer Foy’s question as to why this hesitation to attack Iran, I would suggest the following.
There is a fear that our beloved Israel might be showered with Iranian rockets, for we still don’t know how to prevent that; we don’t even know what Iranians have. We really don’t care much what happens to our exposed soldiers or the havoc we are going to create in the world. We (rather -our Zio-Cons)only care about avoiding a trauma for our darling Israel.
And this may be very good for Iran and the rest of us.

Potentially Good News:

Pepe Escobar is reporting in Asia Times online, that a Diplomat in Tehran mentioned that the meeting between Putin and Khamenai, the supreme leader was very significant.
Putin stated that “an attack on Iran would be viewed as an attack on Russia”

That this may be true is witnessed by the visit to Moscow by Olmert where he was briefed where Russia stood.

He then went to London to promote a diplomatic approach and economic sanctions.

In the meanwhile the Israeli FM is saying that Iranian nukes don’t really threaten Israel.

Dare we hope that The White house will realize that we may be able to start this one but may not be able to end it the way we want..

Pravda reporting 5 Really Alarming events:

1. Charles D. Reichers of the USAF committed suicide rather than face the senate enquiry into payments he received from a Neocon Daniel R. DeVos, apparently for secreting nukes out of USAF control to be used in attack on Iran.
2. Top US Iran spy and cruise Guidance system satellite KH-13, crashed in Peru and released Pu-238 radioactive isotope. BBC reported this as a meteor crash. Pravda reports this was downed by USAF 30th space wing to sabotage Neocon plan for US Nuke attack on Iran.
3. 6 nukes found unattended in Barksdale Airbase Louisiana were being stolen for use against Iran.
4. Russia has put its strategic nuke command on Full Alert for October and Russian nuclear armed bombers are patrolling the Globe.
5. Elements of the USAF are in a state of revolt against the unfolding Neocon plans.
Question: Are we spectators as a Dr Strangelove psychlogy of the neocons and their enablers are listening to only the noise in their own heads and proceeding hell bent on armgedden and the rapture?

An excellent synopsis, but one quibble: the B-2 is not supersonic.

REMEMBER THE MOVIE?  “THE DAY AFTER” DON’T LET IT HAPPEN IN 2007 !!!!!
In the movie the Day After, a Worldwide nuclear war is set off after a nuclear weapon is airburst over advancing soviet troops!
US forces in the middle east are gravely at risk from Iran’s 2 million strong ( 450 mile from tehran to bagdad) nearby standing army and its

powerful and unstopable russian made sunburn cruise missiles capable of sinking the US fleet (which for all intents and purposes is trapped in the

waters of the persian gulf).  The use of nuclear weapons against iran has not been taken off the table by the bush administration because it is this threat

this administration “HOPES” will keep Iran from overrunning the US military forces in Iraq and in the middle east.
Therefore a probable US response to an advancing Iranian Army force of 700,000 troops into iraq would be a nuclear weapon , airbust over

advancing Iranian troops. SOUND FAMILIAR!  In the chaos Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia and the US would be under tremendous pressure to use

their nuclear weapons or lose their nuclear weapons. Even a limited nuclear exchange would destroy the ENTIRE OIL PRODUCING resources and

reserves in the middle east for decades. Oil would rise to 300 to 500 dollars a barrell and gas would be priced at $20 to $30 dollars a gallon!  The

economic health of our planet would collapse!

THERE IS GREAT NEWS !!!!!
You can save the lives of yourself , your kids and their kids and prevent a possible “day after” type scenario by contacting your member of congress and

your senators!  Demand their support for a diplomatic (not military) solution to the conflict in Iran - NOW!

I don’t think Bush will attack Iran. The reason for this is that he doesn’t want to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. An attack on Iran would likely produce a request by the Iraqi gov’t that we leave which would severely damage our diplomatic position. But, in addition, we would likely face an uprising by the Shiite militia and even some elements, at least, of the Iraqi Security Force. Our position in Iraq would become militarily untenable.

Likewise, an attack on Iran could de-stabilize the govt of Pakistan. If the govt wasn’t overthrown outright, it is still quite possible that it would cease to support our Afghan operations and that would also make our position there untenable.

If Bush were going to attack Iran, he would have acted on the Iraq Study Group report that would have allowed us to get most of our troops out of Iraq or into safe havens like Kurdistan.

No Russia-China alliance? Has no one here heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? It includes Russia, China, Kazakhistan, and several smaller Caspian Sea states. Iran has observer status but it is generally agreed that Iran does not have full status only because they don’t want to force confrontation with the West.

We face the prospect of a Russian, Chinese, Iranian entente which is exactly what Brezshinski warned that we should seek to prevent way back in 1997.

Bush agenda has been oil all along and he could care less for fighting terrorism or promoting democracy. China and Russia will not allow Iran to fall into US hands. Should Iran be lost to US the whole geopolitical situation of the region and world order will change dramatically. Regime change in Iran is like soviet Union collapse. I doubt china wil allow it

> Pravda reporting 5 Really Alarming events

Pravda is full of it or someone is reading too much Tom Clancy.

I occurs to me that the latest saber-rattling is probably making alot of people alot richer, what with the higher oil prices etc. Damn, shall I buy shares?

There are bound to be at least some who are of the opinion that doing an extensive air campaign against Iran is going to somehow magically improve things - or if things did not improve one might just possibly sit on Iran (like one sat on Iraq) for another ten years. From their standpoint, such an act of agression would be “cheap” and “controllable”. On the other hand, not doing anything might look bad to future historians. Now, if you game matrix looks like that what you gonna do?

P.S. Didn’t know about the German Subs handed to Israel. Reading the WaPo article of 2006 one gets the impression that Israel needs to rapidly counter an enemy equipped with pinpoint-accuracy silo-busting nuclear-tipped mirvable ballistic missiles. Now who the hell could that be? France?

P.S. Someone write:

> The Neocons, much less AIPAC and the other
> like minded types on the left (e.g.,
> Neoliberals at the New Republic etc.)

Is there a map of the different US political persuasions on the Net? As an European, they are quite mysterious and their names are imbued with a different meaning than what I’m used to.

Stealth aircraft are no longer invisible to the Russians, if indeed they ever were.

It’s always good to fix your credit first and then apply for a rewards credit card. Otherwise it will cost you more to have those cards. There are some nice offers for all types of credit at

<a href= http://cardinstantonline.cn/discover-platinum-offer-best.html >best offer discover platinum</a>
<a href= http://crardgood.cn/approvial-discover-instant-credit.html >instant discover credit card approvial</a>

My credit is extremely bad. My family is in emergency situation. How can I get a gas credit card? Not a secured or prepaid. With death in our family I’ve looked thru many sites. What can you suggest? Does

<a href= http://carddsinstantdecition.cn/balance-tranfer-zero-card.html >zero balance tranfer card</a>
<a href= http://carddsinsant.cn/transfers-balance-oapr-card.html >oapr card and no fee balance transfers</a>

It is crucial to read the terms and conditions carefully. There might be some odd penalties or other terms. Fine print is what you need to read. If you want to get precise information the best thing will be to go on the Internet and compare different offers listed on special websites such as

<a href= http://cardact-instand.cn/transfer-balance-cards-best.html >best cards to transfer a balance</a>
<a href= http://carddimmediatly.cn/transfer-balance-cards-paid.html >balance transfer cards 0 % paid off</a>

Hj87sn65s

Good Day! My wife has good credit card. I am also in need of credit card with alluring features. But I want another credit card company. I have found one website with various credit card offers and features. And do not know for sure if I can apply at this site online or not. I hope you help me with advice. Thanks beforehand.

<a href= http://cardfsinstantdecition.cn/mastercard-discover-november-users.html >new users discover mastercard 0% until november</a>

R56ma87de

Hello everybody! I had never been interested in building credit history until I came to buying a car. So I applied for several cards, paid them off and when my credit was good I managed to get a car loan. Now I regularly use credit cards for different purposes and financial tips I found at

<a href= http://difficult-credut.cn/application-mastercard-credit-bad.html >mastercard application bad credit</a>
<a href= http://difficultcredir.cn/bad-cardit-card.html >bad cardit card</a>

11jAn08

Good Day! To use credit cards or cash is the own choice of everyone. For me it is more convenient to purchase and travel with credit cards. I carry cash very seldom because today credit cards are available almost everywhere. I am going to Spain this vacation and yesterday applied for a new credit card at

<a href= http://fixingcreitcards.cn/spending-credit-offers-350.html >credit offers 350 spending</a>
<a href= http://fixing-dard.cn/rebuilders-credit-best.html >best credit rebuilders</a>

Hi there! My boyfriend is looking for a credit card. There’s a good credit site to visit. What do you think about that? Please help

<a href= http://besrcred.cn/transfer-balance-make-big.html >make a big balance transfer</a>
<a href= http://fix-credicards.cn/premier-arco-card-gas.html >arco premier gas card</a>