End Game? America Lines Up Her Ducks.
Pat Dollard writes about America’s historic meeting with Iran:
Via LGF.
For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.
And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple.
Via LGF.
Patty
20 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (20)
George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure
Bush took this "decision" long before Iran had a nuclear programme.
a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others
That they're allowed to sponsor terrorism while America's enemies aren't
Vice President Dick Cheney
He's the one with the slave trade, right? Oh no, it's oil companies. That's why he isn't getting involved in Zimbabwe.
Largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003
Good luck guys, as you set out to create a second Iraq, only bigger. Don't expect my sympathy when it happens, that's all.
For some reason this reminds me of "The Fuehrer has resolved to wipe Leningrad off the face of the map" or something like that.
Be good Adrian, or we'll send you on a hunting trip with Cheney. ;)
Charles,
Do you agree that Bush set his gunsights on Iran long before the nuclear issue? In other words, the nuclear issue is just a cover, as WMD were in the case of Iraq?
Gawd! There is just nothing like an American aircraft carrier. Goosebumps. *shiver*
Yeah Adrian the conspiracy goes all the way back to 1979 when we arranged for our embassy staff to be taken hostage, but don't worry we may not actually attack them until after one of their imaginary nukes on an imaginary missile lands in the center of piccadily circle...
Piccadilly circus, Troll.
Troll,
You said the same thing about Saddam, remember, and now see where he is and where you are and decide who was the greater danger to whom.
Piccadilly Square.
Adrian yes lets look at that Saddam is dead and Ira
that was weird.. And Iraq is no longer a threat to any nation, they have a democraticly elected government and are on the path to being a decent place to live (in the perspective of the middle east) as for us lets see a 3 year war with less soldiers killed than in one day of WWII plus permanant bases in the middle east with deep water port access. It sounds like success all around.
an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men
20000 men does not constitute an army by any stretch of the imagination.
>>20000 men does not constitute an army by any stretch of the imagination.<<
Then what would you call the British in Iraq?
Then what would you call the British in Iraq?
a couple of regiments.
Pendant! ;)
Pendant! ;)
realist :)
Monica
'Gawd! There is just nothing like an American aircraft carrier. Goosebumps. *shiver*'
:)...except another one.
Two CBG's vs Iran...I'm reminded of that Nicolas Cage film...'Gone in Sixty Seconds' and just to pre-empt (of course) the wishful thinkers here, thatll be Iran that's gone:)
Bush took this "decision" long before Iran had a nuclear programme.
adrian, the decision to take on iran was made before the invasion of iraq. the famous line of 2003 being;
"wimps go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran"
Gawd! There is just nothing like an American aircraft carrier. Goosebumps. *shiver*
ever heard of books?
Yeah Adrian the conspiracy goes all the way back to 1979 when we arranged for our embassy staff to be taken hostage, but don't worry we may not actually attack them until after one of their imaginary nukes on an imaginary missile lands in the center of piccadily circle
they are imaginary. the disparity between the IAEA and rightword is on a cosmic scale. but as everyone knows facts are defeatist.
And Iraq is no longer a threat to any nation, they have a democraticly elected government and are on the path to being a decent place to live
why is everyone who can, leaving the country then? to spread the good news? funny how those statistics never make it onto any attackosphere blogs.
as for us lets see a 3 year war with less soldiers killed than in one day of WWII
and in the three plus years of US action the Nazis were defeated, the war was over and actual peace declared.
plus permanant bases in the middle east with deep water port access. It sounds like success all around.
and off comes the mask. still claiming your intentions arent imperialist? 104 acre embassy indeed.
DT,
"wimps go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran"
And what about the guys who stay back home?
Reminds me of that "This little piggy went to market" thing.
as everyone knows facts are defeatist.
That's exactly what I was saying on another thread. What I'm most surprised to hear is that certain rightwing regulars on ATW have recently begun calling the Iraq operation a success. Troll for example. Apart from removing Saddam, it has neither achieved its own aims nor anybody else's except Al Qaeda's and Sadr's.
they have a democraticly elected government
The real question is whether or not their policies reflect the will of the Iraqi people. If they don't, which Iraqi would care whether that bunch of puppets and traitors were democratically elected or not?
Have they for instance given the oil contracts and reconstruction contracts to the companies desired by the Iraqi people? Did they even have a say in the matter?
as for us lets see a 3 year war with less soldiers killed than in one day of WWII
It doesn't make sense to compare this war with World War II. Instead, compare it with the days when Saddam was in power.
And speaking of a democratic Iraq, how many years will it take to stabilise it?
And what safeguards have been installed to prevent an Islamic revolution (Iranian-backed Shi'ite) the day the Americans leave?
Good points Adrian. I agree that the way the war is being handled is crap. At the same time though you not supporting democracy and adding to anti american propaganda wont help that will it?!
Is it so IMPOSSOBLE to get a debate where two sides arent pitched in making a situation worse? Is you r hatred of Bush so harsh it blinds you to that reality? You think you are in the right but you are merely adding to a propaganda battle that ADDS to it all.
Alison,
It's important to get our facts straight before attempting to find a solution to the Iraq mess. The facts are that America shouldn't have invaded Iraq, and now, having invaded Iraq, Bush should have some basic commitment to stabilising it, even if it involves swallowing his pride a little. In other words, negotiating with the Iranians who happen to be crucial for the survival of any post-American Iraqi government - assuming, that is, that the Americans intend to leave some day. But the Iranians have their own pride (and idiosyncrasies) as well and will be driven away from the negotiating table by any signs of stupidity such as America lining up her ducks.
Since Bush has no intention of swallowing his pride the only remaining option is an anti-Bush campaign by every thinking individual wherever he or she may be. It will be impossible to solve the Iraq mess unless either Bush himself or the next President of America first admits that the Iraq war was fundamentally immoral (which many Americans don't accept) besides being stupendously idiotic (which most of them have realised by now).