View Full Version : Iran, ready or not here we come. . .
Moose-Knuckle
01-12-12, 15:01
Well if you have allowed yourself to be distracted here of late with what the national media deem to be of importance like Beyoncé’s hatchling, the NFL playoffs, and whatever else that is supposed to be Earth shattering news these days :rolleyes: you may have missed what is being cooked up in regard to us preparing for yet another war in the Middle East.
Obama signed sanctions against Iran's Central Bank
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577132923798499772.html
US sends two carrier groups to the Arabian Sea
http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-moves-carriers-denies-iran-023925806.html
Multiple Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Another+Iranian+scientist+killed+covert/5984090/story.html
Belmont31R
01-12-12, 15:13
Obama's gotta drum up a "crisis" to get reelected and distract people with and kinda make him look somewhat presidential.
Thank our Imperialistic foreign policy.
Looks like bankrupcy is going to come sooner than later.
The central bank sanctions might as well have been a bomb in down town Tehran. With out the ability to get paid for the oil they produce they have no reason to do anything but fight like a cornered dog before they starve to death.
If we are gonna play at imperialism I wish we would do it right. Go in, take the plunder and run.
Obama's gotta drum up a "crisis" to get reelected and distract people with and kinda make him look somewhat presidential.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Moose-Knuckle
01-12-12, 15:50
Obama's gotta drum up a "crisis" to get reelected and distract people with and kinda make him look somewhat presidential.
While this is an added benefit for a re-election bid, its way more involved than that. Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor and now he is one of Obama’s closest advisors. We all know what went down in Iran when Jimmy was in office.
The central bank sanctions might as well have been a bomb in down town Tehran. With out the ability to get paid for the oil they produce they have no reason to do anything but fight like a cornered dog before they starve to death.
100% spot on.
If we are gonna play at imperialism I wish we would do it right. Go in, take the plunder and run.
It's not imperialism, its globalism. Iran is a hurdle to objectives.
Obama signed sanctions against Iran's Central Bank
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577132923798499772.html
US sends two carrier groups to the Arabian Sea
http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-moves-carriers-denies-iran-023925806.html
Multiple Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Another+Iranian+scientist+killed+covert/5984090/story.html
Might not be the ominous sequence of related events that you think.
Sanctions are to pressure Iran to abandon their nuclear program.
The carriers are because Iran threatened to close the Straits as a result of sanctions. Obviously these events are related.
Dead nuclear scientists was Israel, they killed one two years ago and bombed a facility before that.
There has been an ongoing effort, especially on the part of Israel, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear capacity.
I strongly doubt Obama is going to take us into war with Iran before an election.
I strongly doubt Obama is going to take us into war with Iran before an election.
I'll put a dollar on it.
This will be his October Surprise.
Moose-Knuckle
01-12-12, 19:27
Sanctions are to pressure Iran to abandon their nuclear program.
Iran, Persians in general are not passive. If you try and starve them they will go full tilt Jihad on your ass.
The carriers are because Iran threatened to close the Straits as a result of sanctions. Obviously these events are related.
According to DOD spokesman they are there on "routine maneuvers". :rolleyes:
Dead nuclear scientists was Israel, they killed one two years ago and bombed a facility before that.
Agreed Mossad, but aren't we bed fellows?
There has been an ongoing effort, especially on the part of Israel, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear capacity.
It's a "global" effort, the US and the IAEA are leading the pack.
I strongly doubt Obama is going to take us into war with Iran before an election.
Military action against Iran is coming, rather that is before or after the election I know not.
Sanctions are to pressure Iran to abandon their nuclear program.
Sanctions are a precursor to war.
If that sounds flippant it's not supposed to be. Look at Iraq, etc.
I'll put a dollar on it.
This will be his October Surprise.
I honestly think it would cost him the election and he knows is.
Might not be the ominous sequence of related events that you think.
Sanctions are to pressure Iran to abandon their nuclear program.
The carriers are because Iran threatened to close the Straits as a result of sanctions. Obviously these events are related.
Dead nuclear scientists was Israel, they killed one two years ago and bombed a facility before that.
There has been an ongoing effort, especially on the part of Israel, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear capacity.
I strongly doubt Obama is going to take us into war with Iran before an election.
do you think it would be plausible to buy into Al Quds actually vaporizing the "scientist"? After all, they seem to blame every internal problem on the evil americans...
According to DOD spokesman they are there on "routine maneuvers". :rolleyes:
Of course it's BS, it's poker. We are flexing but we want to leave them the option of looking like "they decided."
Agreed Mossad, but aren't we bed fellows?
Sure, but that doesn't make it "our plan", Israel kinds does what they do regardless of how we feel about it.
It's a "global" effort, the US and the IAEA are leading the pack.
Military action against Iran is coming, rather that is before or after the election I know not.
Sure there are global efforts, even conspiracies, but that doesn't mean they are all cooperative nor does it make everything related.
Now we certainly do have general policies. We are going to try and coerce Iran into abandoning their nuclear program. We'll probably try the usual UN efforts and it will probably fail to produce results. If Iraq can endure UN sanctions following their costly war with Iran, Iran can probably manage on their own just fine for a long time.
Then it will be up to us to decide if we are gonna play Lone Ranger again. If Obama does it it will cost him votes and support from his own party and he will gain maybe a dozen GOP votes and lip service support from some Republicans. Basically I believe it would guarantee a Republican President in 2012 so I kinda hope he does it.
And regardless of what we do or don't do, it's a pretty safe bet Israel will blow it the **** up if we sit on our hands. I don't think Israel will ever permit a nuclear Iran, and I honestly don't blame them because Ahmadinejad is a whack job and Israel is Target Number One as soon as they go online in Iran.
And IF I'm wrong and Obama does pull Irans card in October, I just hope he is smart enough to send planes and not troops.
do you think it would be plausible to buy into Al Quds actually vaporizing the "scientist"? After all, they seem to blame every internal problem on the evil americans...
Unlikely, Israel has done it before and they will do it again. Anytime some educated type tries to build a supergun for Iraq or a reactor for Iran Mossad steps in and completes their education. Iran has been smacked about every other year in the last 10 years. If memory serves they've blown up two facilities (including the one in Syria) and this is the second scientist.
Nobody seems to notice because it is embarrassing to Iran and Iraq every time Israel walks into their country, takes care of business and walks out. Everyone KNOWS it's Israel anyway so there would be no real benefit to the scapegoating of Israel.
And if Al Quida was going to do it, they'd probably just kill some average Joe and "claim" he was a super scientist killed by the evil zionists.
Unlikely, Israel has done it before and they will do it again. Anytime some educated type tries to build a supergun for Iraq or a reactor for Iran Mossad steps in and completes their education. Iran has been smacked about every other year in the last 10 years. If memory serves they've blown up two facilities (including the one in Syria) and this is the second scientist.
Nobody seems to notice because it is embarrassing to Iran and Iraq every time Israel walks into their country, takes care of business and walks out. Everyone KNOWS it's Israel anyway so there would be no real benefit to the scapegoating of Israel.
And if Al Quida was going to do it, they'd probably just kill some average Joe and "claim" he was a super scientist killed by the evil zionists.
Agreed. Then again, almost everything that comes out of Mahmouds mouth doesn't surprise me.
Interesting article relating to Iran and the U.S. planning to go to war. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28542
With ongoing war games on both sides, armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran are, according to Israeli military analysts, "dangerously close".
There has been a massive deployment of troops which have been dispatched to the Middle East, not to mention the redeployment of US and allied troops previously stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nine thousand US troops have been dispatched to Israel to participate in what is described by the Israeli press as the largest joint air defense war exercise in Israeli history...
"In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.
... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, The Pentagon Preps for Iran Washington Post, 16 April 2006)
variablebinary
01-13-12, 01:52
Interesting article relating to Iran and the U.S. planning to go to war. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28542
Israel is whacking Iranian nuclear scientists. Civilians no less.
If Iran responds, and hits Israel, that basically puts the USA in a de facto state of war with Iran because Israel doesn't have the means to put Iran out of action.
Ain't globalism grand...
All those troops coming home better not get comfortable with unlacing their boots.
On a side note, those targeted Iranian scientists is some grand intel at work. Pretty impressive actually.
Moose-Knuckle
01-13-12, 02:15
On a side note, those targeted Iranian scientists is some grand intel at work. Pretty impressive actually.
I was thinking the same thing, to go into "Indian country" place a bomb on the side of a dude's car via a magnet in the middle of rush hour traffic, achieve the objective, and have minimal to no collateral damage. The target acquisition alone is finite, provided that I have no knowledge of any failed attempts. If these dead guys are legit nuclear scientists then you would think Iran would have some serious PSD for these guys.
If Iran responds, and hits Israel, that basically puts the USA in a de facto state of war with Iran because Israel doesn't have the means to put Iran out of action.
Israel does have nukes of it's own, but will not use them. Pakistan would not stand on the sidelines with it's nukes if that was to happen.
variablebinary
01-13-12, 02:39
Israel does have nukes of it's own, but will not use them. Pakistan would not stand on the sidelines with it's nukes if that was to happen.
What I specifically meant is Israel does not have the means to create regime change.
The end result would still be an even more hostile nation, with an even greater incentive to hit Israel with a WMD.
Only the USA can oust the Mullahs and establish a new government.
However, that doesn't mean we should.
We should sit this one one out, and let the Arabs, Muslims and Israel sort it out.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-13-12, 03:18
Can I please just EAS first?
ThirdWatcher
01-13-12, 04:00
Israel does have nukes of it's own, but will not use them. Pakistan would not stand on the sidelines with it's nukes if that was to happen.
Ever heard of the Samson Option? I do believe Israel would use nuclear weapons rather than face another holocaust (and I don't blame them).
variablebinary
01-13-12, 04:58
Can I please just EAS first?
What do you have against EFP's every 5 feet?
I honestly think it would cost him the election and he knows is.
If he goes marching into war yes. But if he can make it look like Iran provoked it by human rights violations and $8 a gallon gas I think he'll do ok. Sure the "core" libs would be outraged. But a lot of left/center folks paying $200 for a tank of gas "because Iran closed the water ways" are gonna be piiisssseeed.
Doc Safari
01-13-12, 09:02
I'm looking for a "Tonkin Gulf" moment, myself, even if Barry and the Democrats have to "cook one up" about mid-summer.
Iraq Ninja
01-13-12, 09:44
I think this stealth war will continue.
Everyone seems to be expecting a big attack, when in fact there have been lots of micro attacks against Iran since at least 2004.
Would it surprise anyone if it turns out that Israel has already had aircraft over Iran, and has dropped more than a few bombs?
I think Irans anti air program is so ****ed up they wouldn't know if Isreal had flown over, either that or we've flown B2's there for them....
http://incogman.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/IRAQ-IRAN-ODOMETER.jpg
If our nation goes to war with Iran, we need to start acting like the Romans in order to financially survive it!
Kick the piss out of Iran and completely take over their oil production.
The_War_Wagon
01-13-12, 12:20
Obama's gotta drum up a "crisis" to get reelected and distract people with and kinda make him look somewhat presidential.
THIS!!! Can you spell, "Operation Eagle Claw II?" :rolleyes:
If we'd had a REAL President on November 4, 1979, Iran would've been radioactive ash on 11/5/79. :mad:
Der Kommissar Obamassar will go in there, piddle around, get a lot of good men killed, and accomplish nothing. AND get re-elected in SPITE of being a failure (at ALL things). Mittens ain't no Reagan. :(
If we'd had a REAL President on November 4, 1979, Iran would've been radioactive ash on 11/5/79.(
No, no president would have nuked Iran. Remember that was the hight of the Cold War and Mother Russia was tromping into Afghanistan at the time.
I did read yesterday that an Iranian nuke physicist mysteriously died and read Israel's very non-commital response, essentially "these things happen."
montanadave
01-13-12, 12:53
With respect to the dysfunctional, incestuous relationship which exists between US and Israeli intelligence services, here's a recent article from Foreign Policy detailing a "false flag" operation in which Mossad agents carrying US passports and supported with American dollars posed as CIA agents to infiltrate Jundallah, a Pakistani-based Sunni extremist organization accused of assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.
Link to article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
The story cites reports detailing one American intelligence officer's response when apprised of Mossad's recruiting operations. "It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we [the United States] thought."
There does not appear to be any hard evidence to link the Jundallah organization to assassinations of scientists involved with Iran's nuclear program, but suspicions are strong.
Some excerpts form the article cited above:
There is no denying that there is a covert, bloody, and ongoing campaign aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program, though no evidence has emerged connecting recent acts of sabotage and killings inside Iran to Jundallah. Many reports have cited Israel as the architect of this covert campaign, which claimed its latest victim on Jan. 11 when a motorcyclist in Tehran slipped a magnetic explosive device under the car of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a young Iranian nuclear scientist. The explosion killed Roshan, making him the fourth scientist assassinated in the past two years. The United States adamantly denies it is behind these killings.
Israel's relationship with Jundallah continued to roil the Bush administration until the day it left office, this same intelligence officer noted. Israel's activities jeopardized the administration's fragile relationship with Pakistan, which was coming under intense pressure from Iran to crack down on Jundallah. It also undermined U.S. claims that it would never fight terror with terror, and invited attacks in kind on U.S. personnel.
The debate over Jundallah was resolved only after Bush left office when, within his first weeks as president, Barack Obama drastically scaled back joint U.S.-Israel intelligence programs targeting Iran, according to multiple serving and retired officers.
The decision was controversial inside the CIA, where officials were forced to shut down "some key intelligence-gathering operations," a recently retired CIA officer confirmed. This action was followed in November 2010 by the State Department's addition of Jundallah to its list of foreign terrorist organizations -- a decision that one former CIA officer called "an absolute no-brainer."
Since Obama's initial order, U.S. intelligence services have received clearance to cooperate with Israel on a number of classified intelligence-gathering operations focused on Iran's nuclear program, according to a currently serving officer. These operations are highly technical in nature and do not involve covert actions targeting Iran's infrastructure or political or military leadership.
"We don't do bang and boom," a recently retired intelligence officer said. "And we don't do political assassinations."
Israel regularly proposes conducting covert operations targeting Iranians, but is just as regularly shut down, according to retired and current intelligence officers. "They come into the room and spread out their plans, and we just shake our heads," one highly placed intelligence source said, "and we say to them -- 'Don't even go there. The answer is no.'"
The State Department aggressively denies that the U.S. government had or has any ties to Jundallah. "We have repeatedly stated, and reiterate again that the United States has not provided support to Jundallah," a spokesman wrote in an email to the Wall Street Journal, following Jundallah's designation as a terrorist organization. "The United States does not sponsor any form of terrorism. We will continue to work with the international community to curtail support for terrorist organizations and prevent violence against innocent civilians. We have also encouraged other governments to take comparable actions against Jundallah."
While many of the details of Israel's involvement with Jundallah are now known, many others still remain a mystery -- and are likely to remain so. The CIA memos of the incident have been "blue bordered," meaning that they were circulated to senior levels of the broader U.S. intelligence community as well as senior State Department officials.
What has become crystal clear, however, is the level of anger among senior intelligence officials about Israel's actions. "This was stupid and dangerous," the intelligence official who first told me about the operation said. "Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they're supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don't think that's true."
Pardon the mixed metaphor but, oh, what a tangled web we weave when we start down the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" road.
My first job out of college was intel, analyst. And nothing particularly exciting. The 'ops' guys said then of Israel, they are here (in the US) by the tons, and they are our friends until they aren't. I have heard about the incestuous relationship with them as well as the 'we are your friends, not your enemies, but we are spying on you and our international goals and techniques are different than yours and you can't stop us' spiel.
Doc Safari
01-13-12, 14:36
My first job out of college was intel, analyst. And nothing particularly exciting. The 'ops' guys said then of Israel, they are here (in the US) by the tons, and they are our friends until they aren't. I have heard about the incestuous relationship with them as well as the 'we are your friends, not your enemies, but we are spying on you and our international goals and techniques are different than yours and you can't stop us' spiel.
And do you blame them? Any country is going to look out for its own interests, even us. I would wager that we spy on our allies, too.
And do you blame them? Any country is going to look out for its own interests, even us. I would wager that we spy on our allies, too.
Oh, no, I don't judge...just confirming points already made. And yes, we do spy on allies.
I wonder if Iran would ever fake the death of a scientist so the world might think they will be behind and to try to draw sympathy over someone assassinating someone who was just trying to help them get energy ?
This way they still have the scientist
Some countries might have sympathy
Some countries think it might slow down their nukes
Gives their own people a reason to hate US and Israel even more
Gives them a excuse to now kill US and Israely people abroad
Again not saying just thinking what are countries like this capable of ?
THIS!!! Can you spell, "Operation Eagle Claw II?" :rolleyes:
If we'd had a REAL President on November 4, 1979, Iran would've been radioactive ash on 11/5/79. :mad:
Because that situation didn't have anything to do with us starting the revolution to get rid of a democratically elected leader in the 50s because the brits didn't want to pay market price for oil.
Moose-Knuckle
01-13-12, 16:09
With respect to the dysfunctional, incestuous relationship which exists between US and Israeli intelligence services, here's a recent article from Foreign Policy detailing a "false flag" operation in which Mossad agents carrying US passports and supported with American dollars posed as CIA agents to infiltrate Jundallah, a Pakistani-based Sunni extremist organization accused of assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.
Link to article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
Thanks for sharing the link, most informative.
Because that situation didn't have anything to do with us starting the revolution to get rid of a democratically elected leader in the 50s because the brits didn't want to pay market price for oil.
Bingo, blowback can be a real bitch.
Because that situation didn't have anything to do with us starting the revolution to get rid of a democratically elected leader in the 50s because the brits didn't want to pay market price for oil.
Actually, probably not a lot. There is a lot more to that than the RP fanbois like to admit. And the leader that was deposed was not "democratically elected" in the last round of elections. It was a fraudulent election in which he polled over 99% of the vote. Really? Just like Hitler was democratically elected then... (He did the same thing).
..... and they are our friends until they aren't.
"Countries don't have friends, they have interests."
Day one CI...
PdxMotoxer
01-13-12, 21:06
We've moved out of Iraq.....
muammar gaddafi is dead and out of power......
Yet gas prices just went UP???
WMD worked last few times.... spread panic everyone is going to be nuked while drinking their starbucks that we MUST protect the world.
(Seems the REAL worry should be Kim Jong Il's crazy son taking power
but there isn't enough oil there to send fleets)
Sanctions are a precursor to war.
If that sounds flippant it's not supposed to be. Look at Iraq, etc.
We have sanctions against many countries we are not going to war with any time soon... Just because sanctions are a precursor to war doesnt mean all sanctioned countries are going to have war declared on them.
And IF I'm wrong and Obama does pull Irans card in October, I just hope he is smart enough to send planes and not troops.
We can do no more nation building. Super easy to win war against iran... If we dont nation build then there arent the treasure draining problems of the last two warzones.
My personal opinion though is we should either minimize aggressive action or avoid it all together.
My personal opinion though is we should either minimize aggressive action or avoid it all together.
Or, use the amount of violence necessary to accomplish the mission. But first, we need and actual mission with a clear mission end state. We have been at war for 10 years now and we still don't know what we are really trying to do.
Americans in general have a very immature and fantastical vision of what violence looks like and what you can really use it for.
I think we know what we are trying to do in our current engagements. the goal is just incredibly difficult. We want to leave the places in a state where we would hopefully worry less than when we went in... Quite difficult.
I think we know what we are trying to do in our current engagements.
No, we don't. What what the original reason we went into Afghanistan? What was the goal? What were the conditions for victory? What was the Mission End State? Did we achieve this? Have we had mission creep since then? What is currently the mission? What are the current conditions for victory? What is the Mission End State?
Seriously, answer each of the above and please cite and official govt source for this information.
I ask you the same questions for Iraq. And, how will you answer these same questions for our pending war with Iran?
The fact of the matter is that we do not, and have not, had a coherent foreign policy or national strategic vision.
No, we don't. What what the original reason we went into Afghanistan? What was the goal? What were the conditions for victory? What was the Mission End State? Did we achieve this? Have we had mission creep since then? What is currently the mission? What are the current conditions for victory? What is the Mission End State?
i'm not going to claim to have all the answers to your questions, but from what i see the original reason for going to afghanistan was to try and squash aq and taliban. the goal may have been just that, however how do you quantify if aq and taliban are squished? you can't really or there were no parameters that were published or perhaps even thoroughly established... i think the idea is that obama has since redefined the parameters for a de facto victory and hence the draw downs. that is how i have rationalized things in my mind, it makes sense to me but i don't expect it to bring any peace to anyone as it doesn't bring me peace either. it just is the way things unfolded as i see them.
Seriously, answer each of the above and please cite and official govt source for this information.
I ask you the same questions for Iraq. And, how will you answer these same questions for our pending war with Iran?
The fact of the matter is that we do not, and have not, had a coherent foreign policy or national strategic vision.
for iraq i would say we went in with the same lack of published or accomplishable parameters to define victory or goal accomplished. the reason for going in was wmds, once that was debunked, of course there was mission creep.
the original reason for me commenting in this thread is that i believe the reason we were in this war for so long was because it wasn't just a wham bam thank you ma'am war, nor could it have been. there have been efforts at nation building, we aren't just going in destroying it all and then leaving the place as a smoldering heap.
what i would cite as evidence of this is how we are training the local police and military. we are trying to prop them up, is that hard to accept? whether or not that is the right thing to do with united states treasure and blood is not my contention here. there are good arguments for these efforts not being worth our treasure and blood. i can accept that viewpoint as legitimate, but it is how things have unfolded.
if we were to war with iran i would say as a prerequisite for a quick and dirty win (a smash and leave), the sole goal for victory would be _only_ to remove their nuclear capabilities. go in smash it all so they start from scratch and then pull out.
If our nation goes to war with Iran, we need to start acting like the Romans in order to financially survive it!
Kick the piss out of Iran and completely take over their oil production.
i would contend that this may create a very long low intensity war that would cost a lot of money and a lot of blood. we would have to create safe passages to move the oil and we would have nations surrounding that region totally hostile, sending their jihadists to take down the evil empire coming to steal their natural wealth...
we would make a lot of money too... blood doesn't wash out easily though.
Moose-Knuckle
01-14-12, 15:50
No, we don't. What what the original reason we went into Afghanistan? What was the goal? What were the conditions for victory? What was the Mission End State? Did we achieve this? Have we had mission creep since then? What is currently the mission? What are the current conditions for victory? What is the Mission End State?
Seriously, answer each of the above and please cite and official govt source for this information.
I ask you the same questions for Iraq. And, how will you answer these same questions for our pending war with Iran?
The fact of the matter is that we do not, and have not, had a coherent foreign policy or national strategic vision.
After my search to discover the answers to the above mentioned questions this is all I have been able to come up with. . .
The Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)
America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"
montanadave
01-14-12, 16:10
PNAC’s [Project For a New American Century] most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"
And I suppose if such a "catastrophic catalyzing event" doesn't fortuitously present itself, the powers that be may just have to resort to manufacturing one. :suicide2:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.