Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Iran War Under Way


CaP'N GRuNGe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know most of you will dismiss this because the only place he could get it published was Al Jazeera, and the Republicans have gone to great lengths to discredit this guy. Still, I find his article somewhat interesting and wonder if there isn't some truth in there....

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The US war with Iran has already begun

Scott Ritter, Aljazeera.net

 

 

Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

 

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

 

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

 

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

 

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

 

The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.

 

This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.

 

It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.

 

But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.

 

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

 

"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.

 

By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.

 

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

 

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

 

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

 

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

 

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

 

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

 

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

 

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

 

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

 

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

 

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

 

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

 

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

 

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

 

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

 

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

 

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

 

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

 

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

 

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

 

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

 

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

 

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

 

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.

 

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.

 

:: Article nr. 12776 sent on 20-jun-2005 01:46 ECT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I know most of you will dismiss this because the only place he could get it published was Al Jazeera, and the Republicans have gone to great lengths to discredit this guy. Still, I find his article somewhat interesting and wonder if there isn't some truth in there....

 

848737[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I wonder if there is some truth in there as well. Aljazeera.net, yep Grunge, you are moderate :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that concerns me about military operations in Iran is that it could cause anti-American feelings among moderate Iranians, those that have some measure of admiration for the US.

 

If change is going to come about in Iran, it will be led by those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that concerns me about military operations in Iran is that it could cause anti-American feelings among moderate Iranians, those that have some measure of admiration for the US.

 

If change is going to come about in Iran, it will be led by those people.

 

848759[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This is the very thing that was being discussed on the radio this morning on my way in to work. We're playing into the hard liners hands by pursuing military actions and driving young people toward the hard liners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would be disgusted and angry if in fact there weren't any high level plans already being made. That's not to say that I would see a need for any action at this point in time, but if we weren't already talking about it at the Pentagon, I would find that to be completely unacceptable IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would be disgusted and angry if in fact there weren't any high level plans already being made. That's not to say that I would see a need for any action at this point in time, but if we weren't already talking about it at the Pentagon, I would find that to be completely unacceptable IMO.

 

848763[/snapback]

 

 

 

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Iran has to be dealt with, whether it be by diplomacy or by force. Hopefully they are smarter than Saddam, and will take the diplomatic route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the very thing that was being discussed on the radio this morning on my way in to work. We're playing into the hard liners hands by pursuing military actions and driving young people toward the hard liners.

 

848762[/snapback]

 

 

 

ahh, the old "recruiting poster" argument :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would be disgusted and angry if in fact there weren't any high level plans already being made. That's not to say that I would see a need for any action at this point in time, but if we weren't already talking about it at the Pentagon, I would find that to be completely unacceptable IMO.

 

848763[/snapback]

 

 

 

yeah, and the fact that we have CIA ops aimed at helping the opponents of the iranian regime only makes sense as well. of course we do, and we probably have for decades...why wouldn't we? this part is a little confusing though...

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

 

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

 

 

is this Megan Fox trying to argue with a straight face that the same people running the iraq insurgency are helping us in iran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this part is a little confusing though...

is this Megan Fox trying to argue with a straight face that the same people running the iraq insurgency are helping us in iran?

 

848782[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I never try to throw logic out the window. It's quite possible that there are certain people that have been taken under our wing, whereas others decided to break away from it and continue to try to break our resolve.

 

Some know where their bread is buttered, and others are just too stupid to eat.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh, the old "recruiting poster" argument  :D

 

848775[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, if Canadian bombers blew your wife and kids to bits, I'm sure that you would be favorably disposed toward Canada. Might even send them a fruit basket.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, and the fact that we have CIA ops aimed at helping the opponents of the iranian regime only makes sense as well.  of course we do, and we probably have for decades...why wouldn't we?  this part is a little confusing though...

is this Megan Fox trying to argue with a straight face that the same people running the iraq insurgency are helping us in iran?

 

848782[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's insane. Afterall we never armed Saddam and we never employed Bin Laden. Our government is squeeky clean. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad thing is, ever since hussein invaded kuwait, we've had an f'n obsession with kicking his a$$ all the while ignoring the fact that a real enemy of the United States is developing technology that will someday threaten our security if it doesn't already. And yes, Bill gets plent of the blame from me here.

 

The need for forward staging bases for an invasion of a true enemy to the United States is far superior justification for what is going on in iraq today than the liberation of those sorry f*cks and . That makes sense. Unfortunately, hussein probably would have just let us come in if kicking Iran's a$$ was the reason, eliminating the Coward-in-Chief's #1 priority, revenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If change is going to come about in Iran, it will be led by those people.

 

848759[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The main thing I'm disgusted about in Iraq is the people haven't stepped up the way (everyone) wishes they would. They still cower to the insurgents it appears. I'd like to think the majority of Iraqis want freedom. That may be my Republican side talking though.

 

I'd hope the Iranians rise up and we can avoid anything more than a token US military force to support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,

That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!

Thou art the ruins of the noblest man

That ever lived in the tide of times.

Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!

Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,-

Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,

To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue-

A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;

Domestic fury and fierce civil strife

Shall cumber all the parts of America;

Blood and destruction shall be so in use

And dreadful objects so familiar

That mothers shall but smile when they behold

Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;

All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:

And Bush's spirit, ranging for revenge,

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,

Shall in these confines with a president's voice

Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;

That this foul deed shall smell above the earth

With carrion men, groaning for burial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooh, cool...is that nostradamus?  :D

 

848833[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Did Nostradamus use "Dubieux" (doubtful one) to name President Bush by his nickname, "Dubiya"?

 

 

 

From: HogueProphecy Bulletin

Date: 01/22/05 11:19:40

 

http://www.hogueprophecy.com/archiv42.htm)

 

THE "W" PROPHECY

DID NOSTRADAMUS USE "DUBIEUX" (DOUBTFUL ONE) TO NAME PRESIDENT BUSH BY HIS NICKNAME, "DUBIYA"?

 

Friends,

 

Four years ago on the eve of President Bush's first inauguration, a hoax Nostradamus prophecy described the new president as "The Village Idiot."

 

On the rainy and chilly day of his first inauguration, Bush's armor plated limousine and serried ranks of armed secret service guards were momentarily stopped by a crowd of 10,000 protesters along Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

They were demonstrating against the questionable election shenanigans in Florida that they believed robbed the rightfully elected president, Al Gore, of his presidency. Among the many placard messages melting in the freezing rain was the "Village Idiot" label.

 

Now it is four years later. On this day following President Bush's second inauguration, it is time to reexamine an authentic prophecy from the 16th-century French seer Nostradamus that may present his authentic label for the US president. It contains such rare and obvious clues to make it a sure prophecy for "Dubiya," the much cherished and well-known nickname for President Bush. Century 6 Quatrain 13 of Nostradamus' prophetic masterpiece from the 1550s says:

 

+++ IN FRENCH +++

Vn dubieux ne viendra loing du regne,

La plus grand part le voudra soustenir:

Vn Capitole ne voundra point qu'il regne,

Sa grande change ne pourra maintenir.

 

+++ IN AMERICAN +++

A doubtful one will not come far from the realm,

The greater part will want to support him:

A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all,

His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

 

Nostradamus had a passion for hiding major historical figures behind their nicknames, especially if the nickname draws a wicked pun in old French.

 

He only used the word "dubieux" (dubious or doubtful one) and its variant "dubieuse" once in over 36,000 words of his major prophetic work about the future of the world.

 

The rarity is significant. It brings interpretive pressure to bare on its application to one important person in his future history, rather than using this word generally. An obscure Nostradamus prophecy becomes clear when an interpreter uses the right word as a key that unlocks its secrets.

 

The word "dubieux/dubieuse" unlocks two quatrains (6 Q13 and 6 Q95) revealing a similar theme of two leaders, a father and son, and their checkered destinies. Are these the father--former President George Herbert Walker Bush (1988-1992)--and his son, George W. Bush?

 

This leader, at least from Nostradamus' point of view is a doubtful and dubious one. That means he is someone that bears the burden of illegitimacy in the seat of power. He could be one untrained and unprepared for the job thrust to him by means or the fate of being born the scion of either a royal or political dynasty. He is a "doubtful" man expected to follow his father to the seat of power who is less equipped emotionally and intellectually for the job. It is someone who could have great visions without a grasp of reality to see them fulfilled.. It is true, that many of these caveats can be applied to a whole assortment of mediocre or ill-starred leaders since Nostradamus composed these lines sometime in 1556. Indeed this prophecy was applied by me in 1997 to a great though flawed leader, President Richard Nixon, and the Watergate scandal in my book "Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies" (http://www.hogueprophecy.com/ncomplet.htm).

 

A good Nostradamus scholar is ever ready to consider new possibilities, especially if those include a word or phrase that matches a unique slang term or nickname. Until "W" or "Dubiya" Bush became president of the United States there had not been ANYONE whose name phonetically matched the word "dubieux" so closely!

 

Many sympathetic supporters of President G.W. Bush have written to me over the last four years arguing that this prophecy better applies itself to the man Bush defeated in the disputed (doubtful) vote count in Florida 2000, Al Gore. I would have agreed with them if it was not for the near-perfect phonetic match for Bush's nickname--Dubiya--with "dubieux."

 

A highly contentious debate in America over Bush's legitimacy as a leader has only intensified in four years, yet so has his support. A sight majority of Americans believe Bush is a bold leader in war.

 

He is a man of God in the White House and a compassionate conservative poised to revolutionize the country. However, to that half of the United States and the majority of the world that sees him as a dangerous, unilateralist "cowboy" president, they might find support in Nostradamus' pun for "dubious" Dubiya.

 

His detractors will remind us of Bush's record breaking deficit spending, his cutting taxes by trillions of dollars just when the nation finds itself needing to finance and fight a global world war of terrorism.

 

One might call the president dubious for diverting US forces away from seeking and destroying the perpetrator of such a war--al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan--to invade Iraq. Is it not "dubious" to invade a country that has not attacked the US in the war on terror?

 

If I invaded a country, cut tax revenue while draining the coffers of the nation by hundreds of billions of dollars--several billion a month--without any exit strategy, or post war strategy plan, would you not call me a doubtful one? It is nearly two years since Bush led America into Iraq. After a brief war and the violence of the endless post "liberation" period, 100,000 Iraqis had been killed. They are mostly civilians. Another 1,400 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 12,000 wounded in a subsequent insurrection for which Bush and his administartion never planned. But if the butcher's bill for this war is not proof enough of doubtful leadership, we recently find out from the Bush administration that his original reason for killing and maiming all those people actually never existed. The grounds for going to war, ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was a fluke. It is official. There are no weapons.

 

"Bring it on!" taunted the president to the terrorists and they did. A war of terrorism rages on the streets of Iraq where there was no war. Now that country is on the verge of a three way civil war between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. The administration's solution to a deepening quagmire in Iraq is to spread the conflict into Iran with air strikes planned as early as the summer of 2005. Those of you who listen to me on radio and read my articles already know that I have used astrological divination to predict and date such a planned air strike on Iran coming no sooner than the latter half of this summer in 2005. Moreover, I might add that I reported this potential war many months before Seymour Hersh came to the same date and conclusions in his recent New Yorker article.

 

http://www.hogueprophecy.com/archiv42.htm)

 

From here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Nostradamus use "Dubieux" (doubtful one) to name President Bush by his nickname, "Dubiya"?

From: HogueProphecy Bulletin

Date: 01/22/05 11:19:40

 

http://www.hogueprophecy.com/archiv42.htm)

 

THE "W" PROPHECY

DID NOSTRADAMUS USE "DUBIEUX" (DOUBTFUL ONE) TO NAME PRESIDENT BUSH BY HIS NICKNAME, "DUBIYA"?

 

Friends,

 

Four years ago on the eve of President Bush's first inauguration, a hoax Nostradamus prophecy described the new president as "The Village Idiot."

 

On the rainy and chilly day of his first inauguration, Bush's armor plated limousine and serried ranks of armed secret service guards were momentarily stopped by a crowd of 10,000 protesters along Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

They were demonstrating against the questionable election shenanigans in Florida that they believed robbed the rightfully elected president, Al Gore, of his presidency. Among the many placard messages melting in the freezing rain was the "Village Idiot" label.

 

Now it is four years later. On this day following President Bush's second inauguration, it is time to reexamine an authentic prophecy from the 16th-century French seer Nostradamus that may present his authentic label for the US president. It contains such rare and obvious clues to make it a sure prophecy for "Dubiya," the much cherished and well-known nickname for President Bush. Century 6 Quatrain 13 of Nostradamus' prophetic masterpiece from the 1550s says:

 

+++ IN FRENCH +++

Vn dubieux ne viendra loing du regne,

La plus grand part le voudra soustenir:

Vn Capitole ne voundra point qu'il regne,

Sa grande change ne pourra maintenir.

 

+++ IN AMERICAN +++

A doubtful one will not come far from the realm,

The greater part will want to support him:

A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all,

His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

 

Nostradamus had a passion for hiding major historical figures behind their nicknames, especially if the nickname draws a wicked pun in old French.

 

He only used the word "dubieux" (dubious or doubtful one) and its variant "dubieuse" once in over 36,000 words of his major prophetic work about the future of the world.

 

The rarity is significant. It brings interpretive pressure to bare on its application to one important person in his future history, rather than using this word generally. An obscure Nostradamus prophecy becomes clear when an interpreter uses the right word as a key that unlocks its secrets.

 

The word "dubieux/dubieuse" unlocks two quatrains (6 Q13 and 6 Q95) revealing a similar theme of two leaders, a father and son, and their checkered destinies. Are these the father--former President George Herbert Walker Bush (1988-1992)--and his son, George W. Bush?

 

This leader, at least from Nostradamus' point of view is a doubtful and dubious one. That means he is someone that bears the burden of illegitimacy in the seat of power. He could be one untrained and unprepared for the job thrust to him by means or the fate of being born the scion of either a royal or political dynasty. He is a "doubtful" man expected to follow his father to the seat of power who is less equipped emotionally and intellectually for the job. It is someone who could have great visions without a grasp of reality to see them fulfilled.. It is true, that many of these caveats can be applied to a whole assortment of mediocre or ill-starred leaders since Nostradamus composed these lines sometime in 1556. Indeed this prophecy was applied by me in 1997 to a great though flawed leader, President Richard Nixon, and the Watergate scandal in my book "Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies" (http://www.hogueprophecy.com/ncomplet.htm).

 

A good Nostradamus scholar is ever ready to consider new possibilities, especially if those include a word or phrase that matches a unique slang term or nickname. Until "W" or "Dubiya" Bush became president of the United States there had not been ANYONE whose name phonetically matched the word "dubieux" so closely!

 

Many sympathetic supporters of President G.W. Bush have written to me over the last four years arguing that this prophecy better applies itself to the man Bush defeated in the disputed (doubtful) vote count in Florida 2000, Al Gore. I would have agreed with them if it was not for the near-perfect phonetic match for Bush's nickname--Dubiya--with "dubieux."

 

A highly contentious debate in America over Bush's legitimacy as a leader has only intensified in four years, yet so has his support. A sight majority of Americans believe Bush is a bold leader in war.

 

He is a man of God in the White House and a compassionate conservative poised to revolutionize the country. However, to that half of the United States and the majority of the world that sees him as a dangerous, unilateralist "cowboy" president, they might find support in Nostradamus' pun for "dubious" Dubiya.

 

His detractors will remind us of Bush's record breaking deficit spending, his cutting taxes by trillions of dollars just when the nation finds itself needing to finance and fight a global world war of terrorism.

 

One might call the president dubious for diverting US forces away from seeking and destroying the perpetrator of such a war--al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan--to invade Iraq. Is it not "dubious" to invade a country that has not attacked the US in the war on terror?

 

If I invaded a country, cut tax revenue while draining the coffers of the nation by hundreds of billions of dollars--several billion a month--without any exit strategy, or post war strategy plan, would you not call me a doubtful one? It is nearly two years since Bush led America into Iraq. After a brief war and the violence of the endless post "liberation" period, 100,000 Iraqis had been killed. They are mostly civilians. Another 1,400 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 12,000 wounded in a subsequent insurrection for which Bush and his administartion never planned. But if the butcher's bill for this war is not proof enough of doubtful leadership, we recently find out from the Bush administration that his original reason for killing and maiming all those people actually never existed. The grounds for going to war, ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was a fluke. It is official. There are no weapons.

 

"Bring it on!" taunted the president to the terrorists and they did. A war of terrorism rages on the streets of Iraq where there was no war. Now that country is on the verge of a three way civil war between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. The administration's solution to a deepening quagmire in Iraq is to spread the conflict into Iran with air strikes planned as early as the summer of 2005. Those of you who listen to me on radio and read my articles already know that I have used astrological divination to predict and date such a planned air strike on Iran coming no sooner than the latter half of this summer in 2005. Moreover, I might add that I reported this potential war many months before Seymour Hersh came to the same date and conclusions in his recent New Yorker article.

 

http://www.hogueprophecy.com/archiv42.htm)

 

From here...

 

848880[/snapback]

 

 

 

i swear to god, right after i posted the nostradamus crack i almost came back with something about how i bet grunge is all into that nostradamus idiocy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i swear to god, right after i posted the nostradamus crack i almost came back with something about how i bet grunge is all into that nostradamus idiocy.  :D

 

848899[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Nah, just thought i'd do a quick google for ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information