Why is Iran next???

[firebee]

Why was Iraq and Afghanistan first on our list of nations to invade and why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list when 14 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and the majority of the funding came from Saudi Banks and Saudi charity organizations? Why do we seem to be bombing every country, but the country that's producing the terrorists and promoting the terrorism? Why aren't the assets of Al Baraka, a Saudi Bank, frozen when Al Baraka is implicated in funding terrorist organizations? Why is the President of this Bank, chaired on the Saudi American Business Council. Why does this administration consider the Bin Laden family to be allies when members of that family continue to stay in contact with and fund Osama Bin Laden?

Why are we going to lose the War on Terrorism. This is why... http://www.us-saudi-business.org/board.htm

We're going to lose the War on Terrorism because people in our government are covering up for the source of the terrorism... That being Saudi Arabia. They're covering up for the Saudis because the major financiers of the Republican Party; such as ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Boeing, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley; would lose their asses if the Saudi entities responsible for funding the 9/ll attacks had their assets frozen. Essentially... Our government is selling the people of the United States out in order to keep financial relations with Saudi Arabia. In order to appease the bloodthirsty half that want revenge for 9/11, they redirected our sights on nations they have no financial control over, which is Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and IRAN.

Bush doesn't want to spread democracy. He wants to spread capitalism and expand the Republican Party's control of the oil market. This is why we went to war with Iraq and this is why we're going to war with Iran next. This is just Enron at the governmental level.

[hiley]

1. Isn't in the middle of

Iraq and Afghanistan ? It is not really a war on "Terrorism" anyhow.
They are lying .

[Parahandy]

6. Theres a man in Iran..

Beacause it ends in 'an'??


The reasons Iran is next,in the neo-Con mindset; is because it is there.
These are very dangerous times for the world,I really fear for my children to be growing up in a world where there is virtually no way of reigning in the monster of capitalism, the greed of the U.S.Govt and its puppeteers, and the warmongery of the brutal militarists.
:-(

[newyawker99]

15. Hi Parahandy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[independentchristian]

19. Why do you think they call it an "axis"?

Draw a line and make sure that it touches Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and everything else that it touches is fair game, or at least a country that our government has problems with.

[atreides1]

2. My Friend

You're preaching to the choir here. It's not us that needs convincing
it's those brain dead kool-aid drinking sheep that voted for Bush and his Republican goose steppers.

If you can convince even one of them, great, but I don't think it can be done, they lack the whole concept of independent thought.

[against all enemies]

3. Bush wanted to go alphabetically but got mixed up.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea ...oops,

[Nikia]

4. I don't see how they could make any kind of case

There is the nuke thing, but it seems to me that lately Iran has been pretty much minding its own business, disliking American but taking no action.
I think that we should learn from Iraq that invading a country without real terroists against the U.S. just creates them.

[bobweaver]

5. Cause we only have to change one letter in the bomb software.

[TroubleMan]

7. They don't want to end terrorism....they need a bogeyman for you to be

scared of.


What good is all this huge defense spending if there's nobody to fight?

What good is bush's "I'm a cowboy, and I'm gonna rustle the bad guys" persona if there are no bad guys left?

Now that the "communist threat" is gone, they need something to justify our bloated defense budget. They need somebody to scare the populace so that they can control them, and pick their pockets.

They're never gonna go after the real source - they need the terrorists. The terrorists justify the neocons existence.

It's the politics of fear, and it works almost every time.

[lectrobyte]

8. Need to get the oil to the tankers after the Afghanistan pipeline is up.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Global war for resources, not the global war on terrorism. n/t

[Trish1168]

10. geopolitical game

The neo-conservatives (neocons) want perpetual war. This administration is populated by warmongers, whose organization (PNAC) promotes world domination. It seems more than coincidental that as soon as they take over....we are hit by the worst attack since Pearl Harbor (and the writings of the PNAC suggest that Americans would require a Pearl Harbor type of attack before they'd be willing to commit to a large war effort).

Its not just about protecting American businesses in Saudi Arabia. The war on terror is fake. It was just an excuse (notice that they dropped any and all focus on Osama bin Laden). The wars are about securing the Iraqi oil wells (as you know) and putting in a pipeline from Azerbajian and Uzbekistan (the caspian sea oil reserves) through Afghanistan and out through Pakistan. The caspean sea is the largest oil reserve in the world (so its thought). If American controls the worlds oil, we can take over the world to form a benevolent hegemony (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). An American controled world dictatorship cannot be benevolent.

I know all this sounds crazy. All you have to do is google the word "neoconservative", and you'll learn all there is to know about the people in W's administration. The neocon's in the administration are Cheney (the real president), Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Feith and there are some others.

I am frustrated every day. The media makes no mention of the PNAC and their goal of world domination. Tim Russert has had Perle on TV. Don't ya think he could open up the questions with "So, you want to take over the world?" Just a thought.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Trish1168!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Minstrel Boy]

11. Because the real targets are Russia and China. Especially China.

Iran is of strategic importance to America's rivals.

Read the PNAC documents. It's about encirclement, and frustrating the Project for the New Chinese Century.

[devilgrrl]

12. O-I-L!

End of story.

[Undercover Owl]

21. I agree!

how many lives per gallon?

[independentchristian]

13. The report on Why Iran is Next...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

and Why Iraq was first.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[ironflange]

17. What about Syria?

No, wait, no oil in Syria. They have nothing to worry about.

[independentchristian]

20. Syria is a threat to the "investment"

Syria borders Israel and Iraq. They are a threat to the investment. A "nuisance" that can stir up trouble. Besides, PNAC has a vision for the middle east remember?

Bush is involved with everything. Big oil, PNAC, Moon, Wall Street, etc, etc, etc.

Oil may not be driving a conflict with Syria, but another one of the "interests" ruling this administration probably is.

[KaliTracy]

18. SOTU 2002. Axis of Evil. Iran, Iraq, N Korea... interesting article

here about the Speech Writer from the New Yorker, January 2003
AXIS PRAXIS

"A not completely crazy case can be made that the most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush during its first two years was not one of the familiar members of the gold-shielded Praetorian Guard—not Dick Cheney or Colin Powell, not Condi or Rummy, not Tenet or Wolfowitz—but, rather, a forty-two-year-old Canadian named David Frum. During Year I of Bush II, Frum was a White House speechwriter. Although he left the job only ten months ago, his memoir of those distant days has already been written, edited, and printed, and, as of this week, is in the stores. (The revolving door used to turn with stately languor. Now it comes equipped with a tachometer.) the book, he writes that when drafting duties for last year's State of the Union Message were being doled out, his assignment was "to provide a justification for a war," specifically a war with Iraq. After much cogitation, he hit upon the idea of likening what the United States has been up against since September 11, 2001, to the villains of the Second World War. The phrase he came up with was "axis of hatred." Higher-ups changed this to "axis of evil," to make it sound more "theological." Although Frum initially intended his "strong language" to apply only to Iraq, Iran was quickly added. (You can't have a single-pointed axis.)"
<snip>

{emphasis mine}
more here:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg

edited: font