← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 16372 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2005-01-20
2005-01-20 23:09 | User Profile
[url]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3DUTOAX0OL1UJOUCRBAEOCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7385562[/url]
Cheney Says Iran Tops List of Trouble Spots
Thu Jan 20, 2005 01:44 PM ET
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Thursday that Iran was at the top of the administration's list of world trouble spots and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to eliminate any nuclear threat from Tehran.
"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Cheney said in an interview aired on MSNBC on the day that George W. Bush was sworn in for a second four-year term as president.
Cheney, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, said the administration would continue to try to use diplomacy to address what he said were serious concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons program and ties to terrorism.
The administration has also accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of neighboring Iraq, where U.S. forces have been bogged won in a ferocious insurgency since the 2003 invasion.
If Iran resists demands to rein in its nuclear program, Cheney said the next step would be to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council and seek international sanctions "to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations."
Cheney described Iran's nuclear program as "fairly robust." Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make weapons. Cheney, who was a leading advocate for the Iraq invasion, said one concern was that Israel might act against the Iranians "without being asked."
ISRAELIS COULD ACT
"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said.
Israel set a precedent for such action in 1981 when it sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's French-built Osiraq reactor, seen as the key to President Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.
"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Cheney said.
Like Cheney, Bush has stressed the importance of diplomacy in dealing with Iran, but said this week, "I will never take any option off the table."
The Bush administration imposed economic penalties this month against Chinese companies it accused of helping Tehran improve its longer-range ballistic missiles.
After being sworn in on Thursday Bush admonished what he called "the rulers of outlaw regimes" and said, "We will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."
The New Yorker magazine reported this week that the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.
The White House and Pentagon have disputed the report.
2005-01-21 00:50 | User Profile
And the slow, yet inexorable march to an invasion of Iran continues... This article has gotten me thinking a bit about the whole 'loose cannon Israel' angle. Perhaps this time, instead of the tapestry of lies we saw leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Israel will simply 'jump the gun.' And then, of course, we would simply have no choice but to enter the war on the side of The Only Democracy in the Middle East (tm). Hmm..
2005-01-21 01:09 | User Profile
As you can see in Iraq the Iraqis are not the only ones fighting the Americaninky and if the Jews (Zionists) were to attack Iran then that would be the straw that broke the camels back and the world will have a real conflict in their hands.
The world is getting tired of taking crap from the US and the Jews and they wont take it any more.
Remember also that China has a big commitment in Iran in many ways and neither will they take it sitting down.
If we go head to head against China we have to remember that we will confronting our own weapons, those given to the state of Israel by the US and then sold to China.
2005-01-21 04:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]And the slow, yet inexorable march to an invasion of Iran continues... This article has gotten me thinking a bit about the whole 'loose cannon Israel' angle. Perhaps this time, instead of the tapestry of lies we saw leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Israel will simply 'jump the gun.' And then, of course, we would simply have no choice but to enter the war on the side of The Only Democracy in the Middle East (tm). Hmm..[/QUOTE]
Hey, that scenario may be the only one that gets mainstream Joe Sixpacks to finally start asking hard questions about why we're supporting the parasites in the first place, especially if the proverbial s*** hits the fan and US forces experience massive casualties.
The ultimate feather in the America First crowd's cap would be for dispensationalist Christians to become disillusioned with their theology in the aftermath of such a bloodbath.
Worse is better.
2005-01-21 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Hey, that scenario may be the only one that gets mainstream Joe Sixpacks to finally start asking hard questions about why we're supporting the parasites in the first place, especially if the proverbial s*** hits the fan and US forces experience massive casualties.
The ultimate feather in the America First crowd's cap would be for dispensationalist Christians to become disillusioned with their theology in the aftermath of such a bloodbath.
Worse is better.[/QUOTE]
Damned straight.
They want the Apocalypse, let's give it to them.
It will be their undoing.
2005-01-21 08:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]They want the Apocalypse, let's give it to them. [/QUOTE]
The beauty of all this is we don't have to give anything, other than enough rope to the neocons to hang themselves.
As stretched as the military is now, I can't forsee any serious action in Iran without a military draft to boot, which will bring non-volunteer troops from Middle America into the equation along with elites' kids slithering their way out of service somehow (like they always do).
Meanwhile, the dollar is in freefall and the last vestiges of American manufacturing are being exported overseas while illegals come through the border unabated.
Heck, the Freikorps themselves couldn't ask for a better brew to spark a nationalist revival if all these conditions were to coalesce in the near future.
2005-01-21 09:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]The beauty of all this is we don't have to give anything, other than enough rope to the neocons to hang themselves.
As stretched as the military is now, I can't forsee any serious action in Iran without a military draft to boot, which will bring non-volunteer troops from Middle America into the equation along with elites' kids slithering their way out of service somehow (like they always do).
Meanwhile, the dollar is in freefall and the last vestiges of American manufacturing are being exported overseas while illegals come through the border unabated.
Heck, the Freikorps themselves couldn't ask for a better brew to spark a nationalist revival if all these conditions were to coalesce in the near future.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree.
Things are really looking up.
2005-01-21 13:09 | User Profile
[B][I] - "The ultimate feather in the America First crowd's cap would be for dispensationalist Christians to become disillusioned with their theology in the aftermath of such a bloodbath."[/I][/B]
"Hell hath no fury like dispensationalist disillusioned".
Trust me, Jews have never been really comfortable with this alliance with conservative Christians. In spite of all their shallow pro-Jewish silliness, they can sense certain moral uprightness in them that simply scares them - they would rather deal with some nihilistic, corrupted non-entities than people who actually [B]believe[/B] in something.
Check out this "Jerusalem Post" article, written in the aftermath of Mel Gibson's "Passion" release, to witness some primal Jewish fear of Christianity:
[url]http://www.jrep.com/Columnists/Article-66.html[/url]
(btw, I think its writer, David Horo[B]v[/B]itz, is a different person than FrontPage's David Horo[B]w[/B]itz)
[SIZE=3][B]"The Walls Are Closing In"[/B][/SIZE]
...
[COLOR=DarkRed]"Surveys show high proportions of viewers emerging from the torture -- the teenage black girl three seats along jerked involuntarily and wailed out loud as the nails were pounded through gristle and flesh -- to insist that nothing they had seen affected their attitudes to Jews. As an American Jewish friend observed wryly and anxiously, "That can only make you wonder what they thought of us beforehand." [B]And the lack of condemnation from Israel’s would-be allies in the Christian evangelical movements of Gibson’s malevolently selective use of sources can only reinforce longstanding doubts about the wisdom of such alliances."[/B][/COLOR]
...
Petr
2005-01-21 13:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][color=DarkRed]"And the lack of condemnation from Israelââ¬â¢s would-be allies in the Christian evangelical movements of Gibsonââ¬â¢s malevolently selective use of sources can only reinforce longstanding doubts about the wisdom of such alliances."[/color][/QUOTE] Malevolently selective use of sources? So, the fact that Gibson used Christian scripture and works by Christian mystics to tell the central story of the Christian faith is 'malevolently selective'? It is no coincidence that the Jews invented the word 'chutzpah'.
2005-01-28 11:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Damned straight.
They want the Apocalypse, let's give it to them.
It will be their undoing.[/QUOTE]
We should all cancel our subscriptions to TAC and start taking the Standard instead. Does PNAC accept donations?
2005-01-28 12:43 | User Profile
Walter,
We may get our version of the Kaiserheer yet.
2005-01-28 14:45 | User Profile
U.S. forces are not going to occupy Iran or Syria for that matter. Even the neocons aren't that reckless. What would be the rationale for sending ground troops into either of those countries when we are already overextended in Iraq? A draft will not fly in modern day Amerikwa.
2005-01-28 14:59 | User Profile
"[url="http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/379/eVerseID/379/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg"][color=#0000ff]15:18[/color][/url] In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."
Here we have both the idea of "greater Israel" and a justification of present and future seizures of Arab territories. What is the proper Christian American response to fanatical Zionist ideology which seemingly finds its justification in the Old Testament?
"Ex-Prime Minister of Israel Ben-Gurion impressed the following idea on the students: "The map [of Israel] is not the map of our country. We have another map which you students and youngsters in Jewish schools must translate into reality. The Israeli nation must expand its territory from the Euphrates to the Nile." [Walichnowski, T., "Od Jeufratu az do Nilu", Kontynenty No. 2, 1968.]
"Turning our eyes to the north," wrote Menahem Beigin, "we see the fertile lowlands of Syria and the Lebanon . . . to the east the wide rich valleys of the Euphrates and the Tigris ... and the oil of Iraq, to the west the land of the Egyptians. We shall be unable to develop until we have regulated our territorial problems from positions of strength. We shall force the Arabs into absolute submission." [Ibid.]
'In an address delivered to Israeli Army representatives on October 28, 1958, Knesset Member and Zionist leader Menahem Beigin said: ''You Israelis must have no compunction when you kill your enemy. You must not sympathise with him until we have destroyed the so-called Arab culture, on whose ruins we shall build our civilisation." [Ibid.]
The military of our nation is being used as a battering ram by hateful, compunctionless, and lethally clever fanatics, our unsophisticated people ignominiously befooled. This is possibly the lowpoint in the history of these United States.
2005-01-28 15:06 | User Profile
[quote=Bardamu]A draft will not fly in modern day Amerikwa.
Under current conditions, I would agree with you. But, consider the possibility of a WMD-enhanced terror attack in Middle America, with all the helpfully-provided fingerprints that would conveniently point to the Ususal Suspects, "Islamofacists" leaving a trail of breadcrumbs even the most FOX-numbed dolt could connect.
I serioulsly don't understand why no one (publically, at least) asks about the convenient discovery of a rental car near Logan airport, chock full of Korans and "Death to America" literature before the towers had even quit falling, pretty much "proving" that Al-Keda terrurists had done it. All thanks to an "anonymous" tip, natch. Plus, how could, given the 40-minute time frame between tower strikes, the second plane not have been intercepted by F-15s or F-16s in what has to be one of the most heavily defended air corridors in the entire world? How long does it take, at Mach 2+, to reach NY from any of the myriad of airbases in the region? The Mossad must crap themselves at how easy their job is.
Yea, I think another attack at the hands of "Iranians" would change the dynamics of the situation quite nicely. Wouldn't matter if the Iranian gov't denied it, because there would be sufficient "proof" found of their invovlement before the first body had reached room temp. Would a FreeRepublic ShockTroop brigade be far behind? I think not.
Naturally, the kids of the neocons would be exempt from any draft. You ain't gonna see Jenna break a nail hitting the deck, that's for sure!
Even the neocons aren't that reckless.
You've got more faith in their sanity than I do. ;)
2005-01-28 15:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Would a FreeRepublic ShockTroop brigade be far behind? I think not.[/QUOTE]
As long as it is anywhere not near the actual fighting.
2005-01-28 15:56 | User Profile
Sert,
Yeah, my mistake. I should have called it the "FreeRepublic Comfort Women Brigade."
2005-01-28 16:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Under current conditions, I would agree with you. But, consider the possibility of a WMD-enhanced terror attack in Middle America, with all the helpfully-provided fingerprints that would conveniently point to the Ususal Suspects, "Islamofacists" leaving a trail of breadcrumbs even the most FOX-numbed dolt could connect. [/QUOTE]
Good post.
Politically, such a false flag operation would not serve the strategic goals of the NWO crowd. If thousands of innocent people died in a WMD-enchanced terror attack imagine the effect this would have on the country's attitude toward "undocumented aliens" or for that matter aliens in general? The borders would clamp shut. A national identification database would be installed further disrupting the illegal alien labor pool. And Arabs in general would be looked upon generally as a dangerous internal threat, which of course they are.
Economically, a larger war in the MidEast is not feasible without having extremely dire consequences for the Federal budget. Considering our trade deficit and the falling dollar, Pax Americana (sic!) is broke and cannot afford [I]any[/I] extended military adventure, let alone a broadened one.
Socially, start drafting college kids and rap generation retards and it is absolutely guaranteed that the universities and the ghettoes will explode.
All in all, for anybody subscribing to 'worse is better', there has never been so much to feel good about. Except of course for all the innocent people that are going to die.
2005-01-28 16:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]"[url="http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/379/eVerseID/379/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg"][color=#0000ff]15:18[/color][/url] In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."
Here we have both the idea of "greater Israel" and a justification of present and future seizures of Arab territories. What is the proper Christian American response to fanatical Zionist ideology which seemingly finds its justification in the Old Testament? snip [/QUOTE]
Great stuff, Hrodbert.
I'm glad you're here.
2005-01-28 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE]All in all, for anybody subscribing to 'worse is better', there has never been so much to feel good about. Except of course for all the innocent people that are going to die.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
The Yahoodis have to take out Iran. They can't allow the Mullah's to get a bomb, as that would forever change the entire conversation in the ME. They'd have to scrap their plans for a greater Israel and settle for permanent Shitty Little Country status. They'd also have to cut a deal with the Palestinians or face demographic disaster.
So, my bet is they'll go for broke, and lose.
They'll take a lot of us down with them, but the worm has definitely turned on them. They're on the top now, but it's just a question of time before they're back down on the bottom.
And the way things are going, I don't think it will be a lot of time, either. Maybe even this year.
2005-01-28 18:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Great stuff, Hrodbert.
I'm glad you're here.[/QUOTE]Thank you. In spite of my youth (18), I understand the basic issues that confront the West. Of late I have educated myself extensively on the world-historical culture-battle now manifesting itself. Due to a "social conditioning" that few escape, it took me a while to disillusion myself and readjust to the hard facts relating to a certain insolent sect whose goal these past few centuries is apparently the ultimate extirpation of the ennobling and chivalric power of Christ in the Western lands and the gradual and subtle conversion of Europeans to the physically insistent, morally fetid, materialistic, unheroic, degenerated Pharisee-religion Christ overcame 2000 years ago! (so if I focus on such things it is because it is like a whole new unexplored and frightening world to me).
Anyhow, it is well to re-ask: "What is the proper Christian American response to fanatical Zionist ideology which seemingly finds its justification in the Old Testament?" How is Genesis 15: 18-21 to be interpreted?
2005-01-28 18:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus] Anyhow, it is well to re-ask: "What is the proper Christian American response to fanatical Zionist ideology which seemingly finds its justification in the Old Testament?" How is Genesis 15: 18-21 to be interpreted?[/QUOTE]
The answer is [U]The New Testament.[/U]
Welcome to OD Hrodbert.
2005-01-28 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus] Anyhow, it is well to re-ask: "What is the proper Christian American response to fanatical Zionist ideology which seemingly finds its justification in the Old Testament?" How is Genesis 15: 18-21 to be interpreted?[/QUOTE] HrodbertAntoninus, There are others here who are more knowledgeable than I about the Old Testament. That said, in the orthodox Christian view, the Church is Israel, not the ethnic Jews, which means that promises given to 'the seed of Abraham' are promises to the Church. I don't know the exact meaning of this verse, but it should be read in that context, which means that it is not a justification for the expansion of the modern political state of Israel.
2005-01-28 19:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Good post.
Politically, such a false flag operation would not serve the strategic goals of the NWO crowd. If thousands of innocent people died in a WMD-enchanced terror attack imagine the effect this would have on the country's attitude toward "undocumented aliens" or for that matter aliens in general? The borders would clamp shut. A national identification database would be installed further disrupting the illegal alien labor pool. And Arabs in general would be looked upon generally as a dangerous internal threat, which of course they are.
Economically, a larger war in the MidEast is not feasible without having extremely dire consequences for the Federal budget. Considering our trade deficit and the falling dollar, Pax Americana (sic!) is broke and cannot afford [I]any[/I] extended military adventure, let alone a broadened one.
Socially, start drafting college kids and rap generation retards and it is absolutely guaranteed that the universities and the ghettoes will explode.
All in all, for anybody subscribing to 'worse is better', there has never been so much to feel good about. Except of course for all the innocent people that are going to die.[/QUOTE]
Bardamu,
To be sure, I agree with your logic on all the above points, but I'm just not convinced that logic has anything to do with American/Israeli policy.
What appears to be happening, is that the re-election, rather than introducing a note of caution, has, if anything, emboldened the tribe to further their agenda. Even after the WMD thing was a dud, and with more and more blood fountaining out of the M.E. meatgrinder, that a non-entity like Bush still manages to squeak back in (against an even bigger non-entity admittedly) must have 'em saying to themselves, "I can't believe we got away with it! Forward, Oy!" It looks like the operating principle in Washington is, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people" and boy, are they running with it. Perhaps it's just that legendary jewish chutzpah at work. I do think you're correct in your assessment of the likely consequences, which is gonna make Walter and the rest of the worse-is-better crowd giddy, with your noted exception of all those paying the price, of course.
2005-01-28 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]Anyhow, it is well to re-ask: "What is the proper Christian American response to fanatical Zionist ideology which seemingly finds its justification in the Old Testament?" How is Genesis 15: 18-21 to be interpreted?[/QUOTE]
Very simple, Hrodbert. How does St. Paul and the writer of Hebrews interpret it in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11, respectively? Or Christ Himself in Matthew 5:5?
"The New Testament has been written as the ultimate norm for the fulfillment and interpretation of Israel's prophecies. A Christian would deny his Christian faith and Lord if he reads the Old Testament as a closed entity, as the full and final message of God for Jews irrespective of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, and apart from the New Testament explanation of the Hebrew writings."
2005-01-28 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree.
The Yahoodis have to take out Iran. They can't allow the Mullah's to get a bomb, as that would forever change the entire conversation in the ME. They'd have to scrap their plans for a greater Israel and settle for permanent Shitty Little Country status. They'd also have to cut a deal with the Palestinians or face demographic disaster.
So, my bet is they'll go for broke, and lose.
They'll take a lot of us down with them, but the worm has definitely turned on them. They're on the top now, but it's just a question of time before they're back down on the bottom.
And the way things are going, I don't think it will be a lot of time, either. Maybe even this year.[/QUOTE]
This hype concerning Iran is just a build-up for the Israelis to precision bomb Iran, and then everyone will breathe a sigh of relief that our boys on the ground aren't being required to die. The pundits will collectively kiss yahoodi butt for helping us out.
2005-01-28 21:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]This hype concerning Iran is just a build-up for the Israelis to precision bomb Iran
What if that sets off a powder keg in the Middle East that is way beyond the capability of the Israelis to deal with, the US jumps in to shore them up, and things escalate faster and more radically than anyone predicted?
WWI was touched off by a squad of pissed off Serbs, after all.
2005-01-28 22:15 | User Profile
There is an excellent chance that the Iranians would send in some of their Revolutionary Guards to mess with our troops. They would attempt to get the local Shiites to join them. Then again, I read a while back the the chief of the Iranian general staff say that if anything happen they were going to go straight to the source of the problem- Israel.
[QUOTE]This hype concerning Iran is just a build-up for the Israelis to precision bomb Iran, and then everyone will breathe a sigh of relief that our boys on the ground aren't being required to die. The pundits will collectively kiss yahoodi butt for helping us out.[/QUOTE]
I think that this is Israeli disinformation to try to force us to do it. I know that sounds stupid, but this is an extremely stupid and treasonous administration. At this time the Israeli aircraft don't have the range unless we refuel them. What they really want is for the U.S. to do this and spare themselves.
2005-01-28 22:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]What if that sets off a powder keg in the Middle East that is way beyond the capability of the Israelis to deal with, the US jumps in to shore them up, and things escalate faster and more radically than anyone predicted?
WWI was touched off by a squad of pissed off Serbs, after all.[/QUOTE]
I think the powder keg has already exploded in the MidEast. I don't believe that a precision attack on Iran will be received much differently than the one on Iraq years ago. What more is Iran going to do? I'm sure they are already actively engaged fighting the Occupation as it is. But maybe not, perhaps waves of Shiites carrying their own body bags will descend on U.S troops in Iraq.
WWI was set-off by interlocking defense treaties and a general will on the part of many of the European governments to have a war. Don't get me wrong. The Iraq war is already lost if it was ever intended to be won, unless of course we put the fear of extermination in them, which we were perfectly willing to do to our enemies during WWII.
2005-01-28 22:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I don't believe that a precision attack on Iran will be received much differently than the one on Iraq years ago.
I dunno. Back then you didn't have Americans deployed all over the Middle East. There was no intifada going on in the territories. Bin Laden and al Qaeda were unheard of. Europe wasn't half Muslim (well maybe it was, but it wasn't discussed). The Russians weren't fighting a Muslim insurgency in their hinterlands. Wahabism wasn't even an influential ideology....up to Gulf War I Shiites were the bad guys....a position that led to US support for Saddam in the wake of the Iranian revolution and the stuff going on in Lebanon.
To me, the practical blowback from such an operation seems much different today than then.....aside from a few Palestinian suicide bombers, Israel wouldn't bear the brunt of it--the US would, even if the Israelis were the trigger pullers.
2005-01-29 00:19 | User Profile
Freedom is something that you have to earn on your own and that no one can "give" you.
The Palestinian people ang the Iraqi people are in the same boat and they both have to earn their own freedom from the Zionists as well as from the Ameircans.
2005-01-29 13:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]....up to Gulf War I Shiites were the bad guys....a position that led to US support for Saddam in the wake of the Iranian revolution and the stuff going on in Lebanon.[/QUOTE] Good observation. That's the one that really just kills me. I have heard a number of people bemoaning the fact that the Shiite majority in Iraq was being 'oppressed' by the Sunnis, and was not allowed religious freedom. Americans have such short memories.