Why Iran will lead to World War 3

[steve2470]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050809&articleId=825


by Mike Whitney

August 9, 2005
informationclearinghouse.info




"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News

The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.

Sound familiar?

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.

<snip>
In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.

<snip>

Mods: I know my original American Conservative post was locked, but here's one more source. Not corporate media, but another post.

[splat@14]

1. My thoughts from a july 22nd post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4171707



When does a conflict become a war?
How many simultaneous conflicts/wars does it take to become a world war? Did WWII really end? Actually, for that matter, did WWI really end (there was only about 10 years of relative peace between the end of action in WWI and the death spiral into WWII using the current terminology for both events)?

I wonder how history will regard the period (assuming there's someone left to give a shit) of the last 100 years and the next 30 or so. If one considers all the "conflicts", "wars", "police actions" (I honestly lack for different means to define "war" with terms that indicate its size or severity) that have occurred and those that are likely to happen, what we see now as two world wars may really be a single event.

No real revelation here. It seems we have never stopped fighting each other somewhere on this globe for the past 100 or so years and the "end" of a war/conflict generally germinates the start of the next mess. Not that we didn't fight each other before that but the technological advances in the last and this century make us much more proficient at the task. Enough so that we can now exterminate ourselves (that'll show `em!)

Allow my rant here: As I think I'm picking up a trend... we do all these "wars" that we first have to name, then we agree on what the goal is or how we achieve victory. We can move the goal, rename it, whatever, it isn't important as long as we get there. Once that is achieved, then we can go to the next one. The end result is that we are still in THE world war. Contestants, governments, armies revolutionaries, resistance fighters, etc, all may change but that doesn't matter. What does matter is the size and span of the conflict across the globe and the human suffering because of it. The wars don't even have to relate, Columbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. They aren't the same combatants but its the same globe.

We are, and have been for about 100 years, in a world war. Numbering them doesn't mean crap.

Check out the two time lines links.

1914 - 1948: http://worldatwar.net/timeline/18-48.html
1948 and on: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/timeline /

Thanks for listening,
Splat!