Preparing for War With Iran?

[bemildred]

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter outlines the Bushies' plan for military domination of the Middle East

by Steve Sellery - September 29, 2005

Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, made a strong case that the Bush administration is preparing to take the war to Iran in a speech he gave at the United Church on the Green in New Haven on Sept. 17 before an attentive crowd of about 250.

---

"Iraq is a nation on fire," Ritter asserted. "And our troops are the fuel that feeds that fire." Make no mistake about it, he added, today is the best day that we are going to have in Iraq. It is only going to get worse. Why not get out of Iraq on the best day? We do not need to wait until it gets worse.

---

Iran has been complying with all international laws in regards to international inspections of its nuclear energy program. There is no legal way to oppose it, so the Bush administration is saying that it's a front for weapons of mass destruction, according to Ritter. If the United States asks Iran to shut down its nuclear energy program, and this request goes to the U.N. Security Council, Russia and China have said that they will oppose the request. In that scenario, Ritter said, the United States can fall back on Bush's Sept. 17, 2002 New Security Agreement and say that U.S. security is threatened and that the only solution is war.

Ritter said that one reason we cannot find a way out of the Iraq War is that so many members of Congress voted for the war and are afraid to change their position. The only solution is for the American people to vote out of office every elected official--Republican or Democrat--who refuses to change his or her position to one of immediate withdrawal. This includes Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden, who are sticking by their pro-war positions as they run for president. Until we purge all of these people from office, they will send us to war in Iran, Ritter predicted.

Westchester Weekly

[lcordero2]

1. He is right

"The only solution is for the American people to vote out of office every elected official--Republican or Democrat--who refuses to change his or her position to one of immediate withdrawal. This includes Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden, who are sticking by their pro-war positions as they run for president. Until we purge all of these people from office, they will send us to war in Iran, Ritter predicted."

This is what needs to happen...but with diebold around, I really don't know.

[Erika]

2. The American people aren't willing to fund or die in another W war

Period. Regardless if some Democrats back it. You got to know when to fold your hand and cut your losses. I won't back pro-war W democrats.

[tatertop]

4. What we said about Iraq

[tatertop]

3. How discouraging. Scott Ritter has been correct way too often

The idea of this unfounded war with Iran
totally freaks me out. Can we stop it?

[SunDrop23]

5. Listen to Scott speak about Iran here...

Scott Ritter discusses Iran

The speech linked above is from a speech in JUNE.

[serryjw]

6. Unfortunately, we have 4 more years

quote.........
Just a few days ago, on September 26, 2005, The Telegraph of Calcutta, India issued an astounding report that has yet to cause a ripple within America's mainstream news media. In the fifth paragraph of the article, "Gulf factor key to PM's Iran vote decision," were the following words: "Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that THE US HAS PLANS TO INVADE IRAN BEFORE BUSH'S TERM ENDS" (author's emphasis).
end quote...
I think with the condition of Arabia and Bushit's desire for war with Iran...The whole F*CHEN region could be at war in the next 3 years



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10441.htm

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. I heard him speak on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

He is prophetic. I wish to god he wasn't, but he is.

[HereSince1628]

8. Wasn't it Ritter who said US would invade Iran back in June?

Someone said this, and I am fuzzy on who.

Personally, I think it rather unlikely that the US will invade Iran.
It is quite clear that the US military is sorely burdened just to maintain its presence in Iraq.

If the US begins conscription into the military I'll rethink this.

[kywildcat]

9. Pre-emptive Nuclear strike

It has already been outlined. conscription is in the works, and Isreal is goading the public on with 'Iran will have nukes in a few months' tales.
All of this in preparation for the big one.
The Nation published a report (7/05 or 8/05) about che*eys pre-emptive nuclear strike plan aimed specifically at Iran. I'm looking for it now to link to

[HereSince1628]

10. Yes there was a change in nuclear use policy

But, I am doubtful about their pre-emptive use in Iraq. Once hostilities were engaged (say Iran sinks a warship in the Gulf with a silkworm missle) that might be different.

As we've seen several times now, the US doctrine of using overwhelming force will require a huge detectable mobilization and transportation effort. It will take weeks for the US to pull off just the transportation.

If the US announces consctiption and begins moving equipment to Pakistan (its an easier dash to Teheran from the east) I'll admit we are in for trouble.

[Strelnikov_]

14. Paul Craig Roberts Discusses It Here

http://counterpunch.org/roberts09302005.html

Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations."

[Demeter]

13. I'm Sure They Would Have Invaded In June

But Reality got in the way. Funny how that happens--funnier still that they held Reality at bay for as long as they did (using the Clinton surplus of cash and international good will and prosperous economy, all of which are gone with the wind now).

[_ed_]

11. I doubt it

I'm quite sure that the Bush administration would love to invade Iran, Syria, and the rest of the mid-East, however, it just isn't possible now. Their PNAC pipe dream didn't work out for them in Iraq. I'm sure they figured Iraq would have fallen in a week or so, and a flourishing democracy would ensue.

Oops!

Iraq is such a complete mess that they can't do anyting else. We can barely control Afghanistan while fighting in Iraq.

The big question for an invasion of Iran is: Who would fight? There's nobody left! Will they mobilize the boy scouts? Even if they started a massive draft today, it would take at least a year before that force was even close to ready.

Thankfully, it's just not possible.

Ritter said that one reason we cannot find a way out of the Iraq War is that so many members of Congress voted for the war and are afraid to change their position. The only solution is for the American people to vote out of office every elected official--Republican or Democrat--who refuses to change his or her position to one of immediate withdrawal. This includes Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden, who are sticking by their pro-war positions as they run for president. Until we purge all of these people from office, they will send us to war in Iran, Ritter predicted.

Amen to that.

[bemildred]

12. Yep. Iraq is key. Iraq is the tarbaby we all said it would be.

[teryang]

15. ideology above all

This is a movement, a fascist movement run by machiavellians. The war didn't measure up to the ideology but its making the proponents fabulously wealthy. The belief in the propaganda machine is so great that actual outcomes are irrelevant.

The plans for expansion of conflict abroad and repression at home, are speadheaded by the spokesmen for pentagon war profiteers, security contractors and favored government subsidized corporate elites. Is is in the nature of fascist movements that death and suffering is irrelevant.

Diasters like the recent hurricane diasters provide greater opportunities for engorgement at public expense. A second competing militarization, the domestic militarization of the former United States of America, began with the 911 event. Hurricanes spreading much more widespread social damage serve even better. The plan for the establishment of a police state, using military and para-military forces specializing in "urban warfare" to quell disorder in American cities with restless dissatisfied populations is all part of the plan.

After all, what else could the greedy self aggrandizing corporate elites do? Run a democracy with popular rule?

[bemildred]

16. Heh. Personally I think Niccolo was a good deal smarter than this bunch.

But you can be damn sure they don't want to try that last option.
:hi: