US to declare war on Syria and Iran?

[Charade]

The war in Iraq was in it's planning stages on or before January 20, 2001.

You are correct. The "plan" for regime change happened long before Jan 20, 2001.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

 

[Eega Beeva]

Whatever. This thread has just gotten beyond ridiculous. It's quite obvious that Bush and the Republicans could do anything in world and many of you would still find a way to call him "the devil who walks among men'. Time to get real...

What's ridiculous is that there are people out there still willing to get other parents kids killed for a liar and a lie. That there are people out there that still can't see that the emperor has no clothes. When this latest Bush stunt fails (and it will fail) at a heavy cost to American and Iraqi lives, where oh where will you be? Highly doubtful we'll find anyone praising the intelligence of Bush and the Republican party.

Time to get real...

You are 100% correct it IS time to get real. That is what happened on November 7th, the American people said it's time to "get real" and dumped the republicans out of office. Time to get real and get some common sense.

 

[eclectics]

Whatever. This thread has just gotten beyond ridiculous. It's quite obvious that Bush and the Republicans could do anything in world and many of you would still find a way to call him "the devil who walks among men'. Time to get real...

I, for one, will call GWB anything I darn well choose to call him, as others can worship him if they choose to. It's called free speech. If your "reality" doesn't include that, ain't that too bad.

 

[TheDoctor]

The escalation of the attacks on Syria and Iran is just plain bogus. http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/bush-sends-gis-to-his-private.html

To listen to Bush's speech on Wednesday, you would imagine that al-Qaeda has occupied large swathes of Iraq with the help of Syria and Iran and is brandishing missiles at the US mainland. That the president of the United States can come out after nearly four years of such lies and try to put this fantasy over on the American people is shameful. ....

Bush could not help taking swipes at Iran and Syria. But the geography of his deployments gives the lie to his singling them out as mischief makers. Why send 4,000 extra troops to al-Anbar province? Why ignore Diyala Province near Iran, which is in flames, or Babel Province southwest of Baghdad? Diyala borders Iran, so isn't that the threat? But wait. Where is al-Anbar? Between Jordan and Baghdad. In other words, al-Anbar opens out into the vast Sunni Arab hinterland that supports the guerrilla movement with money and volunteers, coming in from Jordan. If Syria was the big problem, you would put the extra 4,000 troops up north along the border. If Iran was the big problem, you'd occupy Diyala. But little Jordan is an ally of the US, and Bush would not want to insult it by admitting that it is a major infiltration root for jihadis heading to Iraq.

 

[basas]

I, for one, will call GWB anything I darn well choose to call him, as others can worship him if they choose to. It's called free speech. If your "reality" doesn't include that, ain't that too bad.

Call him anything you please. Part of the beauty of free speech is that I'm also allowed to think calling him the starter of WWIII is absurd. The man's not perfect, but to think he is actually on the same level as Saddam, Hitler, or even Iran's current president is just ludicrous. Only my opinion, of course.

 

[TheDoctor]

More and more politicians and commentators are concerned that bush has decided to declare a secret war on Iran and Syria. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php

Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.....

But what is disconcerting is that some are speculating that Bush has decided to heat up military engagement with Iran and Syria -- taking possible action within their borders, not just within Iraq.

Some are suggesting that the Consulate raid may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action

Senator Biden today warned Sec. Rice that bush does not have the authority to attack either Syria or Iran. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11492054.htm

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.

"If the president concluded he had to invade Iran ... or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that," said Biden.

"I just want to set that marker," added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an "authoritative answer" on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.

In a testy hearing about Bush's new plan for Iraq, Rice said she did not want to speculate on the president's constitutional authority for such action.

The concept that bush is going to try to divert attention from his failed policies in Iraq by attacking Iran and Syria is just plain scary.

 

[eclectics]

Call him anything you please. Part of the beauty of free speech is that I'm also allowed to think calling him the starter of WWIII is absurd. The man's not perfect, but to think he is actually on the same level as Saddam, Hitler, or even Iran's current president is just ludicrous. Only my opinion, of course.

We're all entitled to one. Telling folks to "get real" when theirs differs from yours takes it up a notch, is all.

 

[TheDoctor]

It appears that the US did attack an Iranian consulate in volation of international law. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The Iraqi foreign minister said Friday that the five Iranians detained by U.S.-led forces in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, also said U.S. forces tried to seize more people at the airport in Irbil, 220 miles north of Baghdad, prompting a confrontation with Kurdish troops guarding the facility that was resolved without casualties.....

Iraqi and Iranian officials initially said the Iranian office was a diplomatic mission, raising questions about whether those detained had diplomatic immunity. But Zebari told The Associated Press that the Iranians worked at a ''liaison office'' that was in the process of becoming a consulate.

''This office is not new and has been there for more than 10 years,'' he said. ''We are now in the process of changing these offices to consulates and ... we will open consulates in Iran.''

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the facility was an ''office of relations'' and that it was waiting for permission to operate as a consulate. The U.S. Embassy also said it was assured the building was not a consulate.

The regional Kurdish government condemned the arrests of the Iranians and called for their release. Many Kurds, including Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, have close ties to Iran. Last month, U.S. troops detained at least two Iranians and released two others who had diplomatic immunity. Two of those detained were visiting as guests of Talabani, his spokesman said.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This might come as a shock-but every administration "plans" wars that may or may not ever happen. Every administration talks about countries and groups that are our enemies, talks about "what if" scenarios-it's part of responsible governing. If a Presidential candidate tells us his/her administration will not do this, there's no WAY I'd vote for them. I want my government to have an idea what they're going to do if Iran attacks Israel or if North Korea fires on South Korea. "Planning" war is how they do that.

 

[awitkov]

Everyone please take the time to read this site and this will explain the real reason for the Iraq War and possible war with Iran.
http://www.petrodollar.info/
Start out on the the left side where is says "what is a petrodollar"
The rest of the tabs will explain how each country is affected.
Thanks

By the way I support Tigger and I love Disney World.

 

[Charade]

This might come as a shock-but every administration "plans" wars that may or may not ever happen. Every administration talks about countries and groups that are our enemies, talks about "what if" scenarios-it's part of responsible governing. If a Presidential candidate tells us his/her administration will not do this, there's no WAY I'd vote for them. I want my government to have an idea what they're going to do if Iran attacks Israel or if North Korea fires on South Korea. "Planning" war is how they do that.

 

[TheDoctor]

I love this clip of Chris Mathhews discussing the possible invasion of Iran with Tony Snowjob. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/11/snow-matthews-iran/

Tonight on MSNBC, Chris Matthews aggressively questioned White House Press Secretary Tony Snow about whether President Bush’s rhetoric last night was a “precursor for a rationale for an attack” on Iran.

Matthews said he feared the Bush administration would use a skirmish with Iranian fighters in Iraq as a reason to “bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any without any action by Congress. That’s the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I’m worried about.” Snow told Matthews “you have been watching too many old movies,” but Matthews interrupted. “No, I’ve been watching the war in Iraq, is what I’ve been watching.”

 

[TheDoctor]

Even Republican congressmen are scared of bush attacking Iran. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Recent_US_actions_could_signal_0112.html

In the U.S. House today, Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran," reports McClatchy Newspapers.

"The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran," Rep. Jones said in a press release.

"Today, there is a growing concern – justified or not – that some U.S. officials are contemplating military action against Iran," Jones continues. "This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such use of force. The Constitution of the United States declares that, while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars, only Congress has the power to authorize them."

 

[LakeAriel]

Cheney in the act....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6261355.stm

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is more on bush's plan to attack Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/w.../15strategy.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — For more than two years after Saddam Hussein’s fall, the war in Iraq was about chasing down insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Last year it expanded to tamping down sectarian warfare.

Over the past three weeks, in two sets of raids and newly revealed orders issued by President Bush, a third front has opened — against Iran....

“You heard this argument in meetings all the time,” a senior official on the National Security Council, who has since left the administration, recalled recently. “Iraq would make the harder problems of Iran and North Korea easier.”

But the opposite happened. North Korea tested a nuclear device in October. And Iran has sped ahead with a uranium enrichment program.

Now, despite the urging of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to engage with Iran, Washington is moving in a more confrontational direction. It is stationing more naval, air and antimissile batteries off Iran’s coast; has persuaded many international businesses to cut off dealings with Iran; and it has interfered with Iranians inside Iraqi territory.

“The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq,” Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, said Sunday. “There’s a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive — that this is a way to get into a spiral with Iran that leads you into conflict. The likely response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around.”

The bushies have been wrong about Iraq helping control Iran and North Korea. I think that the decision not to engage in negotations with Iran and Syria as recommended by the Iraq Study Group is a mistake. I am fearful that bush will use a conflict with Iran as a way to divert attention from the failures and waste of American lives in Iraq.

 

[TheDoctor]

An investment bank issued a warning that it expects Israel with the backing of the US to attack Iran. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Major_investment_bank_issues_warning_on_0115.html

The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled "Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities."

ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robertson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING's daily update, Prophet, that further underscored the bank's perception of the risks of an attack.

ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."

Sketching out the time line for an attack, Robertson says that "we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House."

 

[TheDoctor]

Several posters have made the claim that Iran is supplying insurgents with IEDs. Well it turns that this charge is bogus. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA18Ak02.html

WASHINGTON - For 18 months, the administration of US President George W Bush has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms.

Previously, high administration officials have always admitted that they had no real evidence to support these claims. .....

The previous pattern had been that US and British officials suggested that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shi'ite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate US armored vehicles was the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admitted that they had no evidence.

That allegation serves not just one Bush administration objective, but two: it provides an additional justification for aggressive rhetoric and pressure against Tehran and also suggests that Iran bears much of the blame for the sectarian violence in Baghdad and high levels of US casualties from IEDs.

The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of US troops from shaped charges used against armored vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

The US command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On June 21, 2005, General John R Vines, then the senior US commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army. ....

But the US administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the Sunnis, enemies of the militant Shi'ite parties in Iraq that are aligned with Iran. ....

Privately, British officials said the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.....

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq.

 

[GeorgeG]

I think we're already at war with Iran and Syria. We're just fighting them in Iraq.

 

[salmoneous]

I think we're already at war with Iran and Syria. We're just fighting them in Iraq.

Serious question here - were you aware that Syria and Iraq are on opposite sides of the Iraq civil war?

 

[GeorgeG]

Serious question here - were you aware that Syria and Iraq are on opposite sides of the Iraq civil war?

And neither one is our friend. In fact, I'm not entirely yconvinced we have any friends in the area, even the new Iraqi government. If we're not fighting them specifically, they're supplying weapons to or harboring the enemy. Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic. Used to be you could identify the enemy by the uniform he wore and the flag he fought under. Now they just crawl out from under rocks.