Will Bush Bomb Iran

Will Bush Bomb Iran

  • probably Yes - that's the plan and they intend to execute

    Votes: 99 53.8%
  • Probably No - the plan is a negotiating tactic

    Votes: 85 46.2%

  • Total voters
    184

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
82
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Mcluhan said:
Cheney 'is' going to bomb Iran. He has to, he can, and therefore he will. Its his mandate from above and he has the power, despite this theater we witness by the dems who are self-neutered. Its that simple. There is talk of Generals resigning if the exec command is given. I don't believe for one second they will stand in the way. For one, it will happen quickly, the media will be playing catch up. generals resigning will be mute, and for sure they won't be navy commanders. there is an eager second in command, always. Again, this is more show.

There will be a trigger event. And it will be on Amerika's soil in my opinion and most probably London and the US simultaneously. This is a prediction I am making on the basis of probability and ear to the ground through public channels. I just want to make it clear I have no forehand knowledge of any such event. I'm just a regular guy with a normal sized tinfoil hat, nothing dangerous in intent to the empire, or its current fascist leaning executive. It's my opinion which I still have a right to express....so far that is.

You can interpret a certain flow of events by the info released into the media pool. A key indicator in my bizarro world was Michael Weir coming on CNN this week in defense of staying in Iraq for 8 more years. He's been bought off somehow, or extorted on some level. It impossible for me to imagine him speaking the words he spoke and him believing in them. He sided 'firmly' with the regime and against public opinion, shilling the party line. The only thing I imagine, is that they got to him either with a threat to a woman or child he cares for or something worse. I can't accept money as the payoff.

Until this week i had absolute total respect for Weir's honesty. His shift is significant. He has been weaponised. It indicates a serious effort in prepping for things already set in motion. Weir clearly implicated in no uncertain terms Iran as a dangerous regional perpetrator in an interview reeking with the foul scent of intellectual dishonesty. His sellout is a warning signal for me, like the tree tops ruffling slightly, then leaning prolonged before the blow.

Quack-headed political analysts like myself who engage in this gig for a hobby are not expected to be accurate. Its the pulse we seek to describe. Draw your own conclusions.

Israel is preparing their public for a war with Syria. Russia is indicating war paint is a natural conclusion to events related to the missile defense aggression. I give the case 3 months to heat up.

Its a guess on timing of course, but war is nonetheless imminent.
We don't know when, we don't know where..... sounds like an Elmer Fudd prediction.

OTB
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,991
0
0
Above 7
Mcluhan said:
This is a prediction I am making on the basis of probability and ear to the ground through public channels. I just want to make it clear I have no forehand knowledge of any such event. I'm just a regular guy with a normal sized tinfoil hat, nothing dangerous in intent to the empire, or its current fascist leaning executive. It's my opinion which I still have a right to express....so far that is.

.
Not sure about that OTB but you may be right. Did Elmer have a tinfoil hat ?
Must be kind of tough to keep your ear to the ground with it on.

Even Bush, whom we all now have to admit isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, wouldn't bomb Iran now.
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
Mcluhan said:
I'll take the bet. We should meet anyway.
I'm in for $100.

If you win the bet we better meet quickly. There may not be much time.


Mcluhan said:
addendum...its not Bush. Its Cheney.
The title of the thread is: "Will Bush Bomb Iran", but I'll still take the bet.
 

Mcluhan

New member
lookingforitallthetime said:
I'm in for $100.

If you win the bet we better meet quickly. There may not be much time.




The title of the thread is: "Will Bush Bomb Iran", but I'll still take the bet.
20 months, from today, may 03 2008. $100 CAD. (I no longer transact in USD). I'll send you my email. You can direct debit. :)
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
Mcluhan said:
20 months, from today, may 03 2008. $100 CAD. (I no longer transact in USD). I'll send you my email. You can direct debit.
20 months from today is January 3, 2009.

Let's make the deadline Inauguration Day, 2009. George doesn't like deadlines and I'm pretty sure Hillary lacks the balls for bombing. :D
 

Mcluhan

New member
lookingforitallthetime said:
20 months from today is January 3, 2009.

Let's make it Inauguration Day, 2009. I'm pretty sure Hillary lacks the balls for bombing. :D
lol..you are correct. we should back this off to one year.
 

Mcluhan

New member
If this will occur ' by design' which is where my money is placed, it will happen within the next 12 months (i speculate). And since there is no chance it will happen by chance, we are betting on those two outcomes.
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
Mcluhan said:
If this will occur ' by design' which is where my money is placed, it will happen within the next 12 months (i speculate). And since there is no chance it will happen by chance, we are betting on those two outcomes.
Fair enough, I'm still in on the bet.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
82
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Mcluhan said:
handshake.

may 03. Unconditional. If I win, I lose (we all lose). If you win, we all win.

Costs one of us $100 CAD.
I'm in if you're willing....

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,759
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Watch for the capture of those 6 'RIFTS' at Fort Dix (aka Ft Ding-A-Ling) yesterday to be blamed on Iran.
While those 6 could be sent to Gitmo but my feeling is Team 'w' would prefer renditioning them to Iran. After all Iran broke Laddie's 15 'special ops' RN group in 24 hours .... Gitmo isn't quite as efficient!......:rolleyes:
 

Mcluhan

New member
What a man

NEW YORK TIMES PROUDLY PRESENTS THEIR ADMINISTRATION IN ANOTHER IN THE SERIES OF WORLD PEACE EVENTS. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-cheney.html?ex=1336536000&en=e5537820a00d8bbb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

It's probably just my warped view, but I see this as bullying. Nobody likes a bully, and this asshole takes the cake. I will be so glad when this administration ends. I hope we make it that far. Idiots.

Cheney Warns Iran from Carrier in Gulf


Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 11, 2007

BRUSSELS, May 11 — Vice President Dick Cheney used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 150 miles off Iran’s coast as the backdrop today to warn the country that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”

Vice President Dick Cheney on board the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf today.

Little of what Mr. Cheney said in the cavernous hangar bay of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis, one of two carriers whose strike groups are now in the Persian Gulf, was new. Each individual line had, in some form, been said before, at various points in the four-year-long nuclear standoff with Iran, and during the increasingly tense arguments over whether Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq.

But Mr. Cheney stitched all of those warnings together, and the symbolism of sending the administration’s most famous hawk to deliver the speech so close to Iran’s coast was unmistakable.

It also came just a week after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked briefly and inconclusively with Iran’s foreign minister, a step toward re-engagement with Iran that some in the administration have opposed.

Mr. Cheney’s sharp warnings appeared to be part of a two-track administration campaign to push back at Iran, while leaving the door open to negotiations. It was almost exactly a year ago that the United States offered to negotiate with Iran as long as it first agreed to halt enriching uranium, a decision in which Mr. Cheney, participants said, was not a major player. Similarly, the speech today was not circulated broadly in the government before it was delivered, a senior American diplomat said. “He kind of runs by his own rules,” the official said.

When President Bush ordered the two carriers into the Gulf late last year, senior administration officials said it was part of an effort to gain some negotiating leverage over the Iranians. At about the same time, American military personnel began capturing some Iranians in Iraq, and some of them are still held there.

American officials have also been pressing Europeans banks and companies to avoid doing business with Tehran, in an effort to make it more difficult for the country to recycle its oil profits.

Oil seemed to be on Mr. Cheney’s mind today, when he told an audience of 3,500 to 4,000 American service members on the Stennis that Iran would not be permitted to choke off oil shipments through the waters of the region.

“With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,” he said. “We’ll keep the sea lanes open. We’ll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We’ll disrupt attacks on our own forces. We’ll continue bringing relief to those who suffer, and delivering justice to the enemies of freedom. And we’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”

Some experts on Iran have questioned whether the threats that administration officials occasionally deliver to Iran aid or undercut the diplomacy with the country.

“The problem with the two-track policy is that the first track — coercion, sanctions, naval deployments — can undercut the results on the second track,” said Ray Takeyh, an Iran scholar at the Council of Foreign Relations and the author of “Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic” (Henry Holt, 2006).

“There are some in Tehran who will look at Cheney on that carrier and say that everything Rice is offering is not real. What’s real, to their mind, are the coercive policies Cheney is describing.

“This is a case where we are trying to get through negotiations what, so far, we couldn’t get through coercion.”

The symbols of coercion were part of the backdrop on the Stennis: Mr. Cheney spoke in front of five F-18 Super Hornet warplanes.

But mindful of the lasting imagery of President Bush on another carrier a little more than four years ago, there were no signs proclaiming success, much less “Mission Accomplished.” Instead, Mr. Cheney repeated his arguments about the danger of early withdrawal from Iraq.

“I want you to know that the American people will not support a policy of retreat,” Mr. Cheney said. “We want to complete the mission, we want to get it done right, and then we want to return home with honor.”

Mr. Cheney is on a week long visit to the Middle East, and made Iraq his first stop on Wednesday and Thursday. He spoke to American troops stationed near Saddam Hussein’s birthplace, Tikrit, telling them in somber tones that they still had a tough fight ahead of them.

His assessment stood in stark contrast to the one he made two years ago, when he declared in an interview with CNN that the insurgency in Iraq was in its “last throes.”

The United States remains at odds with Iran over its uranium-enrichment program, which Iran says is for peaceful nuclear energy, but which America and its Western allies say is intended instead to produce atomic weapons.

Administration officials have also said that weapons are being smuggled into Iraq from Iran and that insurgents may be getting training in bomb-making and bomb-placing techniques in Iran. The Iranian government denies sponsoring or encouraging terrorism.

Mr. Cheney visited the U.S.S. John C. Stennis before, in March 2002, at a time when he was trying to build support for the invasion of Iraq.

He also visited Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, where the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is expected to arrive in the next few days. Mr. Cheney’s tour is also scheduled to include visits to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
 

Gyaos

BOBA FETT
Aug 17, 2001
6,172
0
0
Heaven, definately Heaven
Cheney's Money Laundering Scheme

I do find the following odd:

- Wolfowitz gets caught with girlfriend sent to Iraqi Government
- Iraqi government immediately takes a summer vacation so no oil
- Cheney flies there unannounced to tell them not to take a vacation
- Cheney grabs as much of the "missing loot" as possible sent through Wolfowitz
- Cheney flies to Dubai where Halliburton is setting up office
- Cheney immediately jumps aboard the USS Steniz and gives an FU nose to Iran
- Cheney flies back to Dubai to see if the cash is in the bank.

Well, I must say, at least have 4 AC carrier groups there to ward off Iran, not 2.

Gyaos Baltar.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,759
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Bush Changes Continuity Plan

Nice timing, eh!
Almost looks like Team 'w' is preparing for something they know will happen!...:eek:


Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 10, 2007; Page A12

President Bush issued a formal national security directive yesterday ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise, "decapitating" attack on the federal government, and assigned responsibility for coordinating such plans to the White House.

The prospect of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Washington without warning, whether smuggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts as a rising concern since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order. It is designated National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20.

The statement added, "Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions."

After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers to rotate secretly to locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation's survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing "continuity of operations plans."

Since then, other agencies including the Pentagon, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have taken steps to relocate facilities or key functions outside of Washington for their own reasons, citing factors such as economics or the importance of avoiding Beltway "group-think."

Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to an independent Continuity of Government Commission, said the order "is a more explicit embrace of what has been since 9/11 an implicit but fairly clear set of assumptions."

He added, "My frustration is that those assumptions have not gripped the Congress in the same way."

Other former Bush administration officials said the directive formalizes a shift of authority away from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House.

Under an executive order dating to the Reagan administration, responsibility for coordinating, implementing and exercising such plans was originally charged to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and later DHS, the Congressional Research Service noted in a 2005 report on a pending DHS reorganization.

The new directive gives the job of coordinating policy to the president's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism -- Frances Fragos Townsend, who will assume the title of national continuity coordinator -- in consultation with Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, with the support of the White House's Homeland Security Council staff. Townsend is to produce an implementation plan within 90 days. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will continue to coordinate operations and activities, the directive said.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
82
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
onthebottom said:
I'm in if you're willing....

OTB
What.... no reply....

OTB
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts