Bolton is in=Iran attack imminent

[whosinpower]

I feel it in my bones. The ache of impending conflict....far worse than Iraq.

Iran has come out the clear winner from the Iraq war....and it didn't costthem 1800 soldiers and billions of dollars to accomplish. And so, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Bushco will be targeting Iran. For Iran and Iraq to be allied would indicate a serious problem for Israel.

Bolton had to be in place - once the attack on US soil occurs. He will be the cheerleader to the Iran conflict. His job is not to reform the UN - it is to dismantle it.

Keep your eyes open and your heads down, my american friends. End of August - all hell is about to break loose. (my prediction)

[uppityperson]

1. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean it won't happen.

me too

[SunDrop23]

2. That attack has been planned for months now.***

[Eloriel]

3. Why they want Bolton

I haven't read this in a while, but I sure made a prominent bookmark for it:

*** Ron Paul{R} TX :"Neocon Global Govt"
(New World Order -- why they want Bolton)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1855763&mesg_id=1855763
U.N. REform Act - Ron Paul column: NeoCon Global Government
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst061305.htm

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Strangely enough

I do trust Ron Paul when he talks about the neocons. I saw him in an Alex Jones documentary and he was talking about them and everything. This part from his article is scary: <What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.>

And this: <It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.>

The whole article is scary though. :scared: I hope Fitzgerald can get these people and soon. It all began with the "oil-for-food" scandal. Wasn't the main person involved tied to Texas and thus Bush?

[wtmusic]

4. One problem

Iran has a standing army of 750,000 and another 500,000 in reserve.

We have no spare resources on the ground. An occupation would be impossible.

[whosinpower]

6. Occupation is not necessary

Nor desired with Nuclear weapons unleashed.......as per Cheney's request.

[atreides1]

23. We Nuke Iran

Then the entire world will unite against us, by themselves the Russians or the Chinese can't take on the US, but united along with the EU, it's another story.

We would also have to invade Canada and Mexico, South America won't be helping us out either, neither will Central America. Add to that fact that every country on the planet will be building nukes to counter any attack from the US.

If they nuke Iran, they start WWIII. The up side is that the "leaders" of our country will be too distracted by outside worries to be concerned by internal situations, that may be the
time to get things right in this country.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. When we were waiting for the 2000 election to be decided by the

SCOTUS, I had a premonition that ** would get us into the worst war we have ever seen. Iraq and Afghanistan, awful though they are, don't seem to fulfill that message.

My guess is nukes will be going off over Iran.

[spindoctor]

9. Exactly

If I remember correctly, the original PNAC manifest calls for Syria next anyway.

On paper Iran is in a vice between US forces in Afghanistan and US forces in Iraq. In reality, Iran has more influence in both countries than we do.

[tsuki]

11. And an ally called CHINA. Imagine how PO'd the Conservatives

will be if they can get their Walmart daily fix. :sarcasm:

[wtmusic]

13. Imagine how PO'd China will be

if they can't get their oil

[tsuki]

14. That's what I'm talking about.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Maybe that is what they mean

by the US not threatning them? We all know what Bush is about.

[JDPriestly]

5. They haven't prepared the public for this like they did for Iraq.

Also, would they just bomb or also go in? And if they invaded, where would they get the troops?

[shraby]

8. They would probably bomb with the excuse

that it is to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities which they report are underground. Bush will use nuclear bunker busters to do it. That will unleash unimaginable horrors.

[wtmusic]

15. It will be a tougher sell this time around

but watch for unrestrained, bulldog, vituperative rhetoric out of Bolton on Iran in the next 6 months to try to pave the way.

He is a truly dangerous man.

[SmokingJacket]

10. I don't think they could do it without an attack here first.

But London prepared us for that eventuality. Americans are practically *waiting* for it now.

Perhaps they're thinking of pulling a Hiroshima -- couple of bombs, instant capitulation. No big army needed. Just move some troops in from Iraq when the radiation blows over...

(To tell the truth, I don't really believe it will happen. But that's what I thought about Iraq, so who knows anymore.)

[htuttle]

12. It would have to be a two-for-one deal

Syria and Iran signed a defense pact early this year. If one country is attacked, the other will also respond. US analysts disregard the importance of this pact, of course...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1416319,00.html

Attacking Iran could put US troops in Iraq in the jaws of a pincer the likes of which have not seen in many decades.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. Exactly

I strongly believe this as well. Bolton's job is to also put Bush loyalist in there. If they aren't loyalist he'll use his arrogance and go after people like he did that one worker that told about her experience working with Bolton.

[catmandu57]

18. Iran has some big buddies

Namely China and Russia, and they have a pact with Syria. I don't know what insanity these fuckers have plotted, but the first nuclear world war is warming in the wings I'm afraid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Yep, and by the way, we all called it

the child king cannot take no for an answer

[David Zephyr]

21. Bush will not invade Iran. In fact, he's turning Iraq over to Iran.

The Pentagon knows that the U.S. has lost the war in Iraq.

The PNAC and neo-conservative crowd has long accepted that the oil plunder will never work out the way they had hoped it would.

The Bush Administration knows that the only way it can begin to pull out some troops (cut and run) just before the American mid-term elections next years in order to boost the GOP chances at that time will be to allow the Shi'a / Sistani crowd to have Iraq lock, stock and oil barrel. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have already accepted the fact that the end result of the Iraqi Invasion will be the Iranian dominance of Iraq.

He will declare victory even as Iran begins to try and rule Iraq and a hostile Sunni populace by proxy.

In any event, the U.S. will not invade Iran. Syria would be the next target if there were any at all.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

22. Relax

The UN & the world survived Jeanne Kirkpatrick ... just!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Kirkpatrick