Bush/Cheney: Four More Wars! (Newsweek says Iran & Syria are next )

[Stephanie]

Can we make sure THIS gets discussed in the debates? How is that the neocons are still plotting their 50 Years War from inside the Pentagon?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek

Oct. 4 issue - Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.

—Mark Hosenball

[teryang]

1. Just how would other powers react to such attacks?

Who cares what they think?

Iran is a huge country which has the potential to shut off our lines of communication to the Persian Gulf in a conflict thereby interrupting the world's oil supply.

Thus the scenario would be created for total conquest of Iran.

[Pobeka]

2. Iran is sitting on top of %15.5 of the global nat. gas supply.

... according to an article in the latest Sci. American. But I'm sure they're in the axis of evil because they are, well, evil. :eyes:

[htuttle]

9. And some news for the 'kick their ass and steal their gas' crowd:

Natural gas is RARELY shipped overseas due to expense and extreme hazard. Almost all of it is delivered by pipeline.

Therefore, this is not 'our' gas Bush is going to start another war over -- it's "China and Europe's gas". The only Americans who would stand to 'benefit' from such an action would be the ones on the boards of oil companies (and some news to them: it won't work).

Not that ANY of this is defensible from either an ethical or legal standpoint, but I wanted to point out that it doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint either (which would go without saying in any other country but the US, I suppose).

[Pobeka]

15. LNG imports not RARE. 1/8th of our imports are from tankers (LNG).

Here's a link for the 2003 import breakout.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2004/ngimpexp/ngimpexp.pdf

And they want to increase the LNG imports. Here's Greenspan talking about it:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2003-06-10-greenspan-natural-gas_x.htm

And one example of the DOE sponsering research to improve the technology:
http://www.conversiongas.com/html/doe_research.html

As the price of energy increases, shipping LNG around is going to become more and more economically feasible.

I still say IRAN is in the bulls-eye because of the natural gas.

[npincus]

3. Bush: "all options" on the table re: Iran

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1520&ncid=1520&e=6&u=/afp/20040926/pl_afp/us_iran_bush_nuclear_040926221905

US President George W. Bush says "all options are on the table" for making sure Iran dismantles its nuclear program, and that Washington will never let Tehran acquire atomic weapons.


"All options"? Really? Does that include sending Jenna and Barbara there?

[Lerkfish]

4. translation: Nuclear attacks against Iran

unfortunately,this is exactly what I think is going to happen for two reasons:

1. Iran has a better on the ground force, and we don't have the troops to counter them in the area.
2. Bush really, really, wants to use the football. no, I mean really. Really really, kin I, huh daddy?

twisted sickos are going to blow up our globe.

[CrispyQ]

5. And the sheeple will breathe a sigh of relief & say, "We're safer now!"

[npincus]

7. until the DRAFT comes their way

but then it will be too late

[Stephanie]

12. See the dailykos post below -

Israel is being armed to drop bunker-busters on Iran.

What happens if you drop a bunker buster on a nuclear site?

[htuttle]

10. But I'm sure that 'he has no invasion plans on his desk'

Fool me once...

[Stephanie]

14. Well I doubt they inform Bush of anything anyway

Until it's time to make the speech announcing that shock and awe is underway again.

[Jacobin]

6. Did the article mention PNAC?

Softening up the populace for the idea of more wars and how grand they will all be when we conquer the oil and gas fields.

bleah.

[Stephanie]

8. I don't know if there is a longer article in the print edition

Or if this is the whole thing. Nobody mentions PNAC. They always use the vague "neocons" instead of naming names or organizations. Why?

[Stephanie]

11. More, from dailykos - Israel to bomb Iran for October Surprise?

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/27/0635/02130

Anyway, I was reading "MilitaryWeek" Blasts Bush on Leadership which I may add hands Bush his ass on a platter, and I was scrolling down on their website and ran across this article titled Israel challenges Iran's nuclear ambitions

The juicy part is: "Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, which could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded ballistic missiles as a warning against attack."

And guess who they're getting them from: "The BLU-109 bombs, which can penetrate more than 7ft of reinforced concrete, are among "smart" munitions being sold to Israel under America's military aid programme."

Oh great.

[mzmolly]

13. Unless the "media" discusses this issue, it won't be a campaign issue.

Send these articles to the press! :hi: