IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:54 am

Since this has been apparently banned from DU, seen it locked twice now, I thought I would post it here. Might be of some value.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4224792">www.democraticunderground...04x4224792</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>radfringe (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-30-05 04:42 AM<br>Original message <br>IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag) <br> Deep Background<br>August 1, 2005 Issue -- The American Conservative<br><br>In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. <br> <br>The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-30-05 04:48 AM<br>Response to Original message <br>1. Locking <br> This article has been discussed exhaustively already, and to little profit, as it mostly speculation by paleo-cons.<br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby DrDebugDU » Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:09 am

Some additional stuff:<br><br>StevenD at DKos:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Two things: First, Giraldi is a former CIA officer (specifically a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CIA counterterrorism</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> specialist according to his bio at American Conservative), so he probably has contacts among the intelligence services and the military that few journalists in Washington can match. Second, the leak of this information appears to be coming from the military officers in charge of drawing up this plan, or at least with someone familiar with their views. This means the military is starting to become very ansty at the direction the Bush administration is taking the country.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163">www.dailykos.com/storyonl...164841/163</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Let's couple this unconfirmed report with the following excerpt of a June 20, 2005 Aljazeera piece written by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.<br><br>As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.<br><br>...<br><br>The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.<br><br>The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence- gathering phase.<br><br>President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.<br><br>The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.<br><br>...<br><br>To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.<br><br>Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran....<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm">www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN being setup? Uzbekistan says I'm outa here!

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:17 pm

and Uzbekistan wants NOTHING to do with it. I wonder if they've heard something?<br><br>U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan<br><br>By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson<br>Washington Post Staff Writers<br>Saturday, July 30, 2005; Page A01<br><br>Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday.<br><br>In a highly unusual move, the notice of eviction from Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2, was delivered by a courier from the Uzbek Foreign Ministry to the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, said a senior U.S. administration official involved in Central Asia policy. The message did not give a reason. Uzbekistan will give the United States 180 days to move aircraft, personnel and equipment, U.S. officials said.<br><br> <br>If Uzbekistan follows through, as Washington expects, the United States will face several logistical problems for its operations in Afghanistan. Scores of flights have used K2 monthly. It has been a landing base to transfer humanitarian goods that then are taken by road into northern Afghanistan, particularly to Mazar-e Sharif -- with no alternative for a region difficult to reach in the winter. K2 is also a refueling base with a runway long enough for large military aircraft. The alternative is much costlier midair refueling.<br><br>Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld returned this week from Central Asia, where he won assurances from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the United States can use their bases for operations in Afghanistan. U.S. forces use Tajikistan for emergency landings and occasional refueling, but it lacks good roads into Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan does not border Afghanistan.<br><br>"We always think ahead. We'll be fine," Rumsfeld said Sunday when asked how the United States would cope with losing the base in Uzbekistan.<br><br>In May, however, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called access to the airfield "undeniably critical in supporting our combat operations" and humanitarian deliveries. The United States has paid $15 million to Uzbek authorities for use of the airfield since 2001, he said.<br><br>Yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita said that the U.S. military does not depend on one base in any part of the world. "We'll be able to conduct our operations as we need to, regardless of how this turns out. It's a diplomatic issue at the moment," Di Rita said.<br><br>The eviction notice came four days before a senior State Department official was to arrive in Tashkent for talks with the government of President Islam Karimov. The relationship has been increasingly tense since bloody protests in the province of Andijan in May, the worst unrest since Uzbekistan gained independence from the Soviet Union.<br><br>Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns was going to pressure Tashkent to allow an international investigation into the Andijan protests, which human rights groups and three U.S. senators who met with eyewitnesses said killed about 500 people. Burns was also going to warn the government, one of the most authoritarian in the Islamic world, to open up politically -- or risk the kind of upheavals witnessed recently in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials said.<br><br>Karimov has balked at an international probe. As U.S. pressure mounted, he cut off U.S. night flights and some cargo flights, forcing Washington to move search-and-rescue operations and some cargo flights to Bagram air base in Afghanistan and Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. As relations soured, the Bush administration was preparing for a further cutoff, U.S. officials said.<br><br>The United States was given the notice just hours after 439 Uzbek political refugees were flown out of neighboring Kyrgyzstan -- over Uzbek objections -- by the United Nations. The refugees fled after the May unrest, which Uzbek officials charged was the work of terrorists. The Bush administration had been pressuring Kyrgyzstan not to force the refugees to return to Uzbekistan.<br><br>Uzbekistan has been widely viewed as an important test for the Bush administration -- and whether the anti-terrorism efforts or promotion of democracy takes priority. "We all knew basically that if we really wanted to keep access to the base, the way to do it was to shut up about democracy and turn a blind eye to the refugees," said the senior official, on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive diplomacy. "We could have saved the base if we had wanted."<br><br>After the latest setback in relations, the Bush administration is going to "wait for a cooling-off period," the administration official said. "We are assuming they mean it and want us out. We are now not sending someone to Uzbekistan."<br><br>The next test will be whether to withhold as much as $22 million in aid to Uzbekistan if it does not comply with provisions on political and economic reforms it committed to undertake in a 2002 strategic partnership agreement with Washington. Last year, the administration withheld almost $11 million. U.S. officials expect the Uzbek government will again be ineligible for funds<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072902038.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...02038.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: IRAN being setup? Uzbekistan says I'm outa here!

Postby DrDebugDU » Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:30 pm

And Uzbekistan was Bush's biggest friend. <br><br>So what do you think will be set about the Uzbek uprising? Upto now there was silence about the bloodshed. It wouldn't surprise me if suddenly Uzbekistan will be critized for their human rights violations. And the most important question is of course what about Uzbek's oil and gas reserves, because they are extensive and we have the Unocal gas pipeline which is being constructed through Afghanistan.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>March 2001<br>Uzbekistan<br><br>Uzbekistan has significant oil and gas reserves (currently, Uzbekistan is the world's eighth largest natural gas producer). Although the country's oil and gas production has increased in the past decade, Uzbekistan's export potential is hindered by a lack of export routes from landlocked Central Asia.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nigc.org/eia/uzbek.asp">www.nigc.org/eia/uzbek.asp</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 7/30/05 10:31 am<br></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Coup Campaign Against Belarus

Postby proldic » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:08 pm

Belarus falls out with the West for good<br>Novosti political commentator Arseny Oganesyan<br><br>July 28, 2005 <br><br>Belarussian leader Lukashenko says that the U.S. has already earmarked $24 million or, according to the latest<br>data, $32 million, for a revolution in the country in<br>2006-2007.<br><br>Tatyana Stanovaya of the Center for Political<br>Technologies said that "funding of the opposition and<br>the work of U.S. budget-funded independent media is<br>conducted from Baltic territories."...<br><br>A serious crisis has developed in relations<br>between Poland and Belarus, Polish Foreign Minister<br>Adam Rotfeld said on July 28.<br><br>Warsaw has recalled its ambassador from Minsk. Several<br>hours previously, Minsk officials abrogated the<br>plenipotentiary powers of Polish diplomats in Belarus<br>in response to the eviction of Belarussian diplomats<br>from Poland, Belarussian Foreign Ministry officials<br>said.<br><br>This Polish-Belarussian crisis is a small step in the<br>cold war that the West has declared on Belarus'<br>President Alexander Lukashenko.<br><br>U.S. State Department officials and EU commissars are<br>likely to toughen their anti-Lukashenko rhetoric, and<br>pro-Western media will put more and more emphasis on<br>the regime's anti-democratic tendencies as<br>presidential elections in Belarus approach. Elections<br>may take place as early as next year....<br><br>Russia's decisions in this context remain to be seen.<br>Lukashenko said recently that the United States needs<br>Belarus in order to control the flow of Russian<br>resources into Europe...<br><br>Moscow's attitude is two-fold: On the one hand,<br>Lukashenko is continuing his typical anti-American<br>rhetoric, while on the other, he is obviously urging<br>Russia to help, hinting that otherwise it will only<br>lose.<br><br>But Russia and Belarus are not very good friends<br>today. Lukashenko obviously mistrusts Moscow,<br>otherwise the long-term bilateral integration project<br>would have produced some results. For the time being,<br>Lukashenko cannot or does not want to offer Moscow<br>anything better than the status quo. Yet,<br>realistically, he can only hope for Moscow's support.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050728/41009174.html">en.rian.ru/analysis/20050...09174.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coup Campaign Against Belarus

Postby dbeach » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:39 pm

This is also related to the Larouche thread who says Iran is in the sights of evil dicikie sauron<br>LaROUche may be out there BUT he on da money with this..<br><br>neo-cons wants WW III insane as it sounds.. they live for it<br><br>the whole 9/11 event was a test run fro the big fireworks to come..BUT of course the neo-cons will be in all those taxpayer financed bunkers..sipping french wine, eating french food.ect while of course demonizing France for not falling in line..<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=115.topic">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...=115.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Planting The Evidence

Postby Zombie Crack Addict » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:39 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.WayneMadsenreport.com">www.WayneMadsenreport.com</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> has revealed that the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation is zeroing in on Scooter Libby, who had a 'conflict of interest' while blowing Brewster Jennings' cover. Seems the evidence is piling up that the Strausscons were helping out A.Q. Khan, not just as some quid pro quo for trampling over Pakistan, but to get as much illicit tech into unauthorized hands as possible. This fits into the Carol Rosin framework, of course, and corroborates that Rummy most likely had sinister, 'left hand', intentions while on the board of ABB... <p></p><i></i>
Zombie Crack Addict
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The real reason for exposing Valerie Plame's identity

Postby Peachtree Pam » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:54 am

Now we know why it was necessary to break up Plame's network which had found out that Bush, with help from some friends, were actually planting the nuclear weapons evidence in countries through A. Q. Khan's network. No wonder Khan got only a mild reprimand from Bush and Pakistan.<br><br>Clearly there is no level of depravity this administration cannot reach. <p></p><i></i>
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

re:Polish-Belorus crisis

Postby rain » Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:44 am

follow-on from team8plus link - 'Freedom in Iran may well arrive in a Polish guise' -<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.com/military/ops/world_war_4-intro.htm">www.globalsecurity.com/mi...-intro.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>now, who's the u.s. ambassador to Poland.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://krakow.usconsulate.gov/krakow/Spotlight_August_2004.html">krakow.usconsulate.gov/kr..._2004.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>krak - ow !<br><br>but watch out for Turkey.<br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Link is dead

Postby Peachtree Pam » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:05 am

Rain,<br>The globalsecurity link is dead. <p></p><i></i>
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

try again

Postby rain » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:33 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4-intro.htm">www.globalsecurity.org/mi...-intro.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Link is dead

Postby DrDebugDU » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:39 am

> The globalsecurity link is dead. <br><br>It was an .org<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4-intro.htm">www.globalsecurity.org/mi...-intro.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>It's a horrible story, but then again globalsecurity always publishes these propaganda stories. A little excerpt:<br><br>The United States today is the only truly global power. Its military reach extends to every corner of the world. Its economic achievements fuel international trade and industry. Its political and cultural traditions and values appeal to people around the world. And while no one questions America's paramount position, many raise the issue of how the United States is trying to transform this unique power into sustainable influence. <br><br>Nine-eleven made it clear the United States had enemies capable and willing to inflict substantial damage to its interests at home and abroad.<br><br>These new threats to US and global security necessitate a rethinking of the organizing principles of international order, say analysts. <br><br>This new preventive doctrine <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>negates the sovereignty of other nations</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> by insisting on the right of the US to <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>interdict other nations</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> in advance of an act of aggression.<br><br>In 2001 the US State Department identified seven countries -- Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria -- as sponsors of international terrorism<br><br>James Woolsey stated on 02 April 2003 at a speech at UCLA that the war on Iraq is the opening of a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>much-to-be-desired "Fourth World War"</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and that the governments of Iran and Syria are "America's enemies" in this war. Woolsey stated that "We are fighting "World War IV, a war that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>will last longer than World Wars I or II</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. <br><br>The US has adopted a forward <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>strategy of freedom in the Middle East</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. President George W. Bush announced the policy on 06 November 2003, at a twentieth anniversary celebration of the National Endowment for Democracy (=CIA). He celebrated the success of countries from Eastern Europe to Latin America, to parts of Asia and Africa that have moved from dictatorship to democracy. "In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet Communism had failed, precisely because <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>it did not respect its own people</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->...." <br><br>President George W. Bush says, the greatest security for the U.S. and for all countries comes from the advance of human freedom: ". . . <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>because free nations do not support terror. Free nations do not attack their neighbors. Free nations do not threaten the world with weapons of mass terror</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Americans believe that freedom is the deepest hope and need of every human heart. And I believe that freedom is the right of every person. And I believe that freedom is the future of every nation." <br><br>Leaders in countries ranging from China, Russia and Iran to many European capitals share deep anxieties about the emergence of the United States as a "benevolent hegemon" -- seeing a "<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>rogue superpower</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->" instead.<br><br>Nuf said... <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

propaganda ?

Postby rain » Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:15 am

gee. no kidding ?<br><br>actually it makes me dizzy, not just reading it, but also trying to figure out whether these guys actually believe this, or whether they know they're lying but strategy wins, or whether they're so habituated to it they can't tell the difference. circular thinking. 'cogs in his diabolical plan'.<br>'We want you nervous'. so why did the story involving the bin Laden brothers just pop up for air again?<br>'...arrive in a Polish guise'. so why the Poland-Belorus 'crisis'?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

and furthermore

Postby rain » Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:44 am

'...we are on the side of those whom you ... most fear ... your own people.'<br>WTF does that mean. who's yankin' who's chain?!<br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: propaganda ?

Postby DrDebugDU » Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:53 am

> actually it makes me dizzy, not just reading it, but also trying to figure out whether these guys actually believe this, or whether they know they're lying but strategy wins, or whether they're so habituated to it they can't tell the difference. circular thinking. 'cogs in his diabolical plan'.<br><br>Globalsecurity.org is the leading information source for bullies. That's why the military loves that site. It's the incredible amount of hypocracy which makes it very hard to read, but for some reason the military is no longer hiding the stories, it is published with all the nasty details and they are probably proud of it.<br><br>Making people nervous is part of the bullying behavior. Fear is the best way to gain control of people. So Woolsey wants people to fear him. He doesn't want people to kiss his ass, but he wants them to be afraid of him, because ultimately that makes many times stronger.<br><br>'We want you nervous'. so why did the story involving the bin Laden brothers just pop up for air again?<br><br>> '...we are on the side of those whom you ... most fear ... your own people.'<br><br>We know what the Iraqi people think of the United States. I think it speaks volumes...<br><br>> '...arrive in a Polish guise'. so why the Poland-Belorus 'crisis'?<br><br>I don't know. Poland and Belarus can't stand one-another especially since West Belarus used to be part of Poland. And Poland is moving forwards fast while Belarus is still lacking. It sounds like Poland was to become a regional player just like before World War II.<br><br>The following remark is also present on that site:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>7 November 2006<br>The US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. It is improbable that the United States would launch strikes against Iran in the run-up to the election. However, as soon as the election concludes, domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran would be greatly diminished. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-timeline.htm">www.globalsecurity.org/mi...meline.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That means that either the Iran war is in the near future. The period in the run-up to the 2006 elections is not a good time (because it'll mean that people are going to vote against it), but after the 2006 elections it is free game again.<br><br>That means that Iran attack will happen either end of this year, beginning 2006 or otherwise December 2006. <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Middle East

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests