US Military Strike on Iran Set for the Week of April 6, 2008?

[PerfectSage]

Was checking out global events magazine and saw the alert for a possible Iran attack this week. :tinfoilhat:

Link to Global Events Magazine

While developments such as any US military strike on Iran are difficult to predict with certainty, an array of factors the Editor considers to be potentially important have recently emerged such that the he felt a responsibility to issue this alert in good faith, intended to heighten awareness of the significantly increased possibility, even likelihood, that the US will soon act on Iran. The factors that obliged the Editor to issue this alert are listed below. The reader should be aware of these, evaluate their importance for his/her self, and watch unfolding developments closely as the week of April 6, 2008 approaches.

Top Bush administration officials have recently, and repeatedly, spun last year's Intelligence Assessment on Iran, which leaned toward the view that Iran had stopped its drive to acquire nuclear weapons, as signifying that Iran does indeed have a nuclear weapons program, that it has in all likelihood restarted that program, and that it will likely have a weapon by 2010 if not stopped now.

Diplomacy, as nearly everyone can see, is mostly ineffective in stopping Iran in its nuclear aims and activities. Despite enormous diplomatic pressure, and its acquiring Russian fuel for its reactor at Bushehr, Iran continues its drive to enrich its own uranium, for but one example.

Top Bush administration officials have recently resumed beating the war drums loudly with respect to Iran, regarding its nuclear activities, the ongoing and accelerating spread of its destabilizing tentacles across the Persian Gulf region, its activities in Iraq in instigating violence, calling Iran the most serious threat to stability and world peace.

Dick Cheney has recently completed a ten-day tour of the Persian Gulf region, including also Turkey, where he met with leaders to discuss Iran, which was at the top of his agenda in every stop he made. His visit included every state that hosts large US military bases in the region, bases that would be key in any US military action against Iran.

In Saudi Arabia, Mr. Cheney won the Saudi king's support for actions to ease oil prices - something the Saudis had steadfastly refused to do until now. Any US strike on Iran will produce an oil price shock. However, such a shock can be cushioned by increased supply by Saudi Arabia, it is hoped. Mr. Cheney won the cooperation of the Saudis with respect to an increase in the global supply cushion.

Key European powers, most notably Germany and France, have recently come down firmly in support of Israel's security in the face of the mounting Iranian threat, which threat has been stated by German and French leaders to be grave and totally unacceptable. Though the German leader (Ms. Merkel) stopped short of endorsing military action against Iran, she vowed total support for Israel's security. One must realize that public statements that fail to explicitly support military action do not oblige Germany to withhold clandestine, real support for the military option. The French President is firmly on board with the US in a possible military option against Iran.

The sudden resignation of US CENTCOM commander Adm. Fallon, a vocal critic of the militarist policies of the Bush administration, strongly suggests that the US is now poised to exercise the military option. Exactly one year ago, when the US had placed four aircraft carrier battle groups in and around the Persian Gulf, Adm. Fallon vowed he would resign before he would carry out the command to order US forces into action against Iran. In effect, he thereby vetoed the US strike that was imminent last April. In the year that has followed until now, the US pursued diplomatic options in a futile effort to stem Iran's rise. Adm. Fallon's sudden departure raises truly ominous signs that the US administration, along with key NATO allies, has decided it must resort to the military option. Adm. Fallon, as promised, resigned before he would have any part in such a foolhardy venture. Whether he was forced out or resigned willingly is of little consequence here. He leaves his post on March 31, 2008. After that date the way is clear for a US strike.

Mr. Bush has only about 10 months left in office. If he is to deal with the swarming Iranian threat, he must do so now. He cannot risk leaving the problem to a democrat successor and thereby go down in history as a totally failed leader. In his mind, that is not an option. The window of opportunity for him to save/establish his legacy is rapidly closing.

Starting on Sunday April 6, 2008 the Israelis will conduct the largest-ever nationwide, week-long defensive war drill simulating ballistic missile strikes on Israel from Iran and Syria. The dimensions of this upcoming drill are unprecedented. This drill may well be a cover, allowing Israel to prepare for an imminent US strike on Iran and Syria, but without depriving the US of its element of surprise.

The US has recently positioned an array of Aegis destroyers, which excel in ballistic missile defense, close to its Persian Gulf allies and Israel, ready to intercept Iranian and Syrian missiles. The recent installation of such a buffer against retaliatory Iran-Syria missile strikes portends that something is in the offing with regard to US military actions against both Iran and Syria.

The US has the ability, absent any significant number of aircraft carrier battle groups in the vicinity, to quickly turn Iran's nuclear and military sites and assets into a junkyard virtually overnight. From its bases in the vicinity (Iraq, Oman, Turkey, Israel), from its base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and from European and US bases, as well as from its submarine fleet, the US can employ B1, B2 and B-52 bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and shorter range attack aircraft to mount a massive air strike on Iran and Syria without any warning whatsoever.

However, the US cannot hope to suppress all of Iran's and Syria's ballistic missile and asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities. Hence, some missiles and other forms of retaliation will likely reach their targets - US bases in Iraq, Oman, Qatar, etc; oil installations along the Gulf; Israeli cities and installations; shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The US is playing with catastrophe in opting for a military "solution" on Iran.

It must be noted here that the US, if it does strike Iran and Syria, will almost assuredly use nuclear-tipped bunker busters to ensure the destruction of key targets buried deep underground, including nuclear assets, command and control, and the hiding places of the members of the Iranian and Syrian regimes. The US will enjoy plausible deniability as respects any use of nuclear weapons, since it can proclaim that any radiation that is released came from Iran's nuclear reactor (already fueled by Russia) and from secret underground nuclear sites in the target

Additional factors pointing to early April as the most likely time for a US strike:

The Pentagon has procured a large inventory of sophisticated bunker-buster bombs and their delivery systems. When the contracts for these systems were initiated last year, a clause required their complete delivery by the start of April, 2008.

Mr. Bush initiated a program to fill completely America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve with the stipulation that it must be completed by the start of April, 2008. It is now completely filled.



Against a dangerous enemy in possession of significant and deadly air defenses, the US always launches air strikes under the dark cover of an astronomical new moon so as to give its pilots every advantage and protection. Iran is such an enemy. Iraq in 1991 was also such an enemy, and US air strikes began at 3:00am local time on January 17, 1991 - the day of the astronomical new (darkened) moon. While the US did begin its air strikes against Iraq in 2003 on the night of a full moon (March 18, 2003), that was due to the fact that it had received credible intel as to Saddam Hussein's location, and it attempted to take him out, thus starting operations earlier than planned. Additionally, Iraq of 2003 possessed only a small fraction of the air defense capabilities it had in 1991, and thus posed little real threat to US air forces. The next astronomical new moon is April 6, an optimal date for utilizing cover of darkness for air operations. The next astronomical new moon after that is May 5.

It is reported by Scott Ritter, former chief US arms inspector, as well as by other sources, that now-former CENTCOM commander Adm. Fallon recently got into a dispute with the Bush administration over orders to deploy a third aircraft carrier battle group to the vicinity of the Persian Gulf, to be on station in early April. Adm. Fallon took the position that a third group was unnecessary unless a strike on Iran was in the offing, and refused to carry out the order. His partly forced/partly voluntary "resignation" followed immediately. The third carrier group is being deployed to within striking distance of Iran.

Link to Global Events Magazine

[spindrifter]

1. And that will totally sink the economy.

[Windy]

2. I went to Scott Ritter's lecture. He thinks it will be either June or sometime in the fall.

He believes it will happen.

[BadgerLaw2010]

15. Scott Ritter has predicted 6 of the last attacks on Iran. n/t

[FogerRox]

19. But its a new moon....

which happens like 11 or 12 times a year.

[RC]

3. the United States is the most serious threat to stability and world peace.

Not Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not North Korea, not China, not Venezuela, not even Canada.

Where is the limit? When will the rest of the world gang up on us, U.S. and make the United States a bombed out war zone? When that happens a hard recession would seem fun and enjoyable in comparison.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Scott Ritter - Target Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiZrWIVR69s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zyoSo9aU4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyy7jOJvfp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fANyFJIl9Ss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f65zLzqeTdw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCnrzXEJkw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2uTw4VjeT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pjYICHuois

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoqGNUEoRGU

[PerfectSage]

6. Thanks for the youtube links.

On War #255: Operation Cassandra

The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack.

Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq.

Lots of people in Washington are pondering possible consequences of an air and missile assault on Iran, but few if any have thought about this one. The American military’s endless “we’re the greatest” propaganda has convinced most people that the U.S. armed forces cannot be beaten in the field. They are the last in a long line of armies that could not be beaten, until they were.

Here’s roughly how it might play out. In response to American air and missile strikes on military targets inside Iran, Iran moves to cut the supply lines coming up from the south through the Persian Gulf (can anyone in the Pentagon guess why it’s called that?) and Kuwait on which most U.S. Army units in Iraq depend (the Marines get most of their stuff through Jordan). It does so by hitting shipping in the Gulf, mining key choke points, and destroying the port facilities we depend on, mostly through sabotage. It also hits oil production and export facilities in the Gulf region, as a decoy: we focus most of our response on protecting the oil, not guarding our army’s supply lines.

Simultaneously, Iran activates the Shiite militias to cut the roads that lead from Kuwait to Baghdad. Both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades — the latter now supposedly our allies — enter the war against us with their full strength. Ayatollah Sistani, an Iranian, calls on all Iraqi Shiites to fight the Americans wherever they find them. Instead of fighting the 20% of Iraqis population that is Sunni, we find ourselves battling the 60% that is Shiite. Worse, the Shiites logistics lie directly across those logistics lines coming up from Kuwait.

U.S. Army forces in Iraq begin to run out of supplies, especially POL , of which they consume a vast amount. Once they are largely immobilized by lack of fuel, and the region gets some bad weather that keeps our aircraft grounded or at least blind, Iran sends two to four regular army armor and mech divisions across the border. Their objective is to pocket American forces in and around Baghdad.

The U.S. military in Iraq is all spread out in penny packets fighting insurgents. We have no field army there anymore. We cannot reconcentrate because we’re out of gas and Shiite guerrillas control the roads. What units don’t get overrun by Iranian armor or Shiite militia end up in the Baghdad Kessel. General Petraeus calls President Bush and repeats the famous words of Marshal MacMahon at Sedan: “Nous sorrune dans une pot de chambre, and nous y serron emerdee.” Bush thinks he’s overheard Petraeus ordering dinner — as, for Bush, he has.

U.S. Marines in Iraq, who are mostly in Anbar province, are the only force we have left. Their lines of supply and retreat through Jordan are intact. The local Sunnis want to join them in fighting the hated Persians. What do they do at that point? Good question.

[seemslikeadream]

7. They do not care about the soldiers in Iraq

[tblue37]

8. My son is in Iraq until the end of June. My nephew is there until the

end of August. I am ready to freak out about this!

[FogerRox]

20. That article is very poorly written and contains many errors

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3116674&mesg_id=3116674,


I like to post more responsible and factual based posts. Read the link, I think you will see a difference.

[tblue37]

21. The link doesn't work. n/t

[Juche]

5. There are no consequences for them

Nothing will happen to Bush, Cheney, Feith, Kristol or anyone else if Iran is attacked. The dems will probably still not impeach (despite claims to do so). I don't see them being held accountable anytime soon. If there were (arrest or impeachment), maybe they'd think twice.

However, everyone else will suffer. Dead and maimed Iranians first and foremost. But beyond that our global reputation destroyed even worse, and fuel prices will go so high a massive recession/depression is almost guaranteed. Chavez & Ahmadinejad were claiming last year that if we attack Iran oil will go to $200/barrel. So good luck keeping our economy afloat with $6/gallon gasoline and diesel.

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-4528--12-12--.html

[brettdale]

9. Don't agree

There have been various posts that their will be an attack on Iran, since 2004.

[FogerRox]

12. Exactly, and the article quote has 4 carriers in the region a year ago

that simply never happened.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Search my DU Journals, I have covered this issue better than this crap.

Vigilance, dont trust Bush, but this article is worth a grain of salt.

[Peace Patriot]

10. "...the most serious threat to stability and world peace"?? Iran has invaded no one.

The U.S. has invaded Iraq, and slaughtered 1.2 million of its people, as well as torturing and imprisoning many thousands, continuing to drop bombs on civilian areas and to occupy a country where the U.S. has no right whatsoever to be.

Who is the "rogue state"? Who is the threat to stability and world peace?

Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon and never use it. They're not crazy--like Bush and Cheney seem to be (crazy with greed and desire for power). It would more than likely result in detente--and act as a deterrent to U.S. or other aggression against Iran. That's why WE have nuclear weapons, supposedly--as a deterrent--not as a first strike, aggressive weapon. There is no way for the Dickheads to strike Iran with conventional forces. They are too well-defended. They are not a weak, war- and -sanctions ravaged state with no air force, as Iraq was when the U.S. invaded. They also have nuclear power allies--China, for instance. And the U.S. simply doesn't have the troops to invade Iran. So nukes it would have to be. Who are the crazy ones? Who would do that? Iran? I think it's extremely unlikely, because if they did so, the U.S. and Israel would retaliate with nukes and Iran would be wiped out. Who would do it? The Bushites would.

So who is creating instability? Who is a grave threat to world peace?

The answer, unfortunately--tragically--is our own country, the land of the free, home of the brave.

Whatever cache we may have had in the world, from defeating the Nazis, being kind to our enemies with the Marshall Plan, and helping create the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, is gone. The Bushites have spent our wad in more ways than one. We are now the nazis of the world, hated by nearly everyone--and for good reason. And if the Bushites attack Iran, that will be that. We will suffer grave, grave consequences. We may be attacked. We will most certainly be shunned. We will be the pariah of the world.

However, I don't think it's going to happen--except possibly by some manufactured incident, such as the "Gulf of Tonkin," whereby the Bushites blow up some of our own people in order to start a war. Barring that--which I don't put past them--I think China is blockading an attack on Iran, and they will go elsewhere with their warmongering to secure other oil fields. My best guess: Venezuela and Ecuador. The disinformation and psyops began long ago, and have become very intense. Indeed, the first shots have been fired--with the ten 500 lbs. U.S. "smart bombs" dropped on Ecuador recently, using U.S. surveillance, and possibly U.S. aircraft and personnel--ostensibly to kill the chief FARC hostage negotiator, and stop all those hostage releases that leftist presidents in South America were successfully negotiating. But it may also well have been a systems test-out for near-future aggression. Venezuela and Ecuador are more defended by democracy itself, than by arms (unlike Iran, which has been preparing for an attack for some time, and is well-armed). Venezuela and Ecuador have hugely popular governments, democratically elected. So do Bolivia and Argentina (other potential targets). And these governments have allies in the leftist governments of Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua. The Bushites will lose in South America. I'm sure of that. But they may not think so--because their thinking is so fucked up. They think weapons equal strength. And I think they may be about to find out what REAL strength is--moral strength, the strength of justice and fairness, the strength of legitimate government.

Again, WE are going to suffer the consequences--we, who have failed to control our government. We are going to be ostracized in our own hemisphere--if, as I suspect, they intend war in South America.

Time to throw the corporate election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor,' don't you think? --and re-declare the American Revolution, this time with the peaceful weapons of vote counting that everyone can see and understand.

[PerfectSage]

14. Will They Signal an Iran Attack? The Petraeus and Crocker Show

Thanks for your great post. I'm so sick and tired of worrying about what that idiot Bush has done and might do before he leaves. I wish Fallon hadn't resigned.


Will They Signal an Iran Attack?

April 5, 2008. Today the London Telegraph reported that "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian militiary facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment."

The neocon lacky Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the US governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the US must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq."

The Bush regime will tell any lie and orchestrate any event in order to "finish the job" in the Middle East.

"Finishing the job" means to destroy the ability of Iraq, Iran, and Syria to provide support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Syria might simply give up and become another American client state. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Israel can steal the rest of the West Bank along with the water resources in southern Lebanon. That is what "the war on terror" is really about.

The entire world knows this. Consequently, the US and Israel are essentially isolated. The US can only count on the support that it can bribe and pay for.

[FogerRox]

11. Some factual issues here,

Exactly one year ago, when the US had placed four aircraft carrier battle groups in and around the Persian Gulf,

Well, if you count a carrier in the Sea of Japan, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, maybe that was 3. And the 4th carrier was at anchor in India, its crew on leave. Fast and loose with the facts means the Bullshit meter goes apeshit.


Funny thing about carriers, they are big, leave huge 200 to 300 mile electronic footprints, and wel.... the US Navy has no qualms about stating exactly where its carriers are at any giving time.

US Carrier Locations, get yer hard cold facts not that age old hype
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion
Mon Jul 09th 2007, 10:37 PM
Do a DU search, check it out, here and daily KoS, under my user name, Every damn time somebodies posting crap about having 6 carriers of the coast of some Mid Eastern Country, I just get this urge to yell at 'em and say STF up.

WE have one carrier in the Persian Gulf, the Stennis, who is 6 months into its deployment, which means another carrier needs to go out to the Persian Gulf area and replace the stennis. I think the Enterprise will be replacing the Stennis.

1) Nimitz is in India, @ Anchor, crews on leave
2) Enterprise as of june was in the mniddle of qualifications, easy coast.
3) Kitty Hawk is in the Coral Sea.
4) Ike is in Norfolk Va.
5) Carl Vinson is drydocked untill 2010.
6) Theodore Roosevelt is in Norfolk for a 9 month maintence cycle.
7) G. Washington just got out of drydock in Norfolk.
8) Stennis is in the Persian Gulf. And is near the end of its 6 month deployment.
9) Harry S. Truman is training on the east coast.
10) Ronald Reagan is in SAn Diego.
11) GHW Bush has not yet been delivered to the Navy.
12) Lincoln is off the state of Washington, from its home port of BRemmington.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html


Routine says the Stennis ( near the end of its 6 month deployment.) gets replaced by the Enterprise.

DU'ers, I have been saying it for a year, if we get 4 carriers in the Persian Gulf thats something to worry about. But every 6 months there is a rash of posting about the build up... yawn, gimme a effin break, do some freakin research before you posting up some bullshit. Carriers deploy for 6 months, then get replaced, YAWN.

I cant but think of the child's story, about crying wolf.

From here

Carriers, Strike groups & where they are not located-the missles ships carr...
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Primaries
Wed Oct 25th 2006, 09:48 PM
There has been a lot of We're attacking Iran posts all over the internet.

I feel the need to address some the poor information being posted recently concerning ship and troop deployments.

From Here.

The Pentagon has procured a large inventory of sophisticated bunker-buster bombs and their delivery systems. When the contracts for these systems were initiated last year, a clause required their complete delivery by the start of April, 2008

Got a name? And what is the so called delivery systems ? Might that be a ..... jet plane ? Woooohhhhhhh I am scared shitless. No mention of the Tomahawk bunker buster variant. How about some REAL facts ?

Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missile
On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing. Work will be performed in Tucson AZ and is expected to be completed by March 2003.

From Here

Dont bullshit people with unsupported crap, On an issue this important make a citation or shut up.


This is the the GBU-28 or the BLU-113, is 19 feet (5.8 meters). It weighs about 4,400 pounds.



Air-to-air view of GBU-28 hard target bomb on an F-15E Eagle.

[FogerRox]

13. more spin

In Saudi Arabia, Mr. Cheney won the Saudi king's support for actions to ease oil prices - something the Saudis had steadfastly refused to do until now. Any US strike on Iran will produce an oil price shock. However, such a shock can be cushioned by increased supply by Saudi Arabia, it is hoped. Mr. Cheney won the cooperation of the Saudis with respect to an increase in the global supply cushion.

The Saudis have no extra supply, their production is in decline.




Saudis largest oil field 164 miles long, all the blue and green is water. The fat part, is less porous rock that contains heavier and sour crude oil, very hard to pump out even after 40 yrs of water injection.

[Kip Humphrey]

16. It is a new moon tonight & tomorrow night

[FogerRox]

18. How many new moons has there been since Bush has rattled the Iran sword

The article cites bombers like the B-1 and B-2, the biggest bunker busters are not carried by those planes, only the C-130 carries a MOAB or variant.

The article is utter tripe.

[FogerRox]

17. And now the ultimate gaffe

The US has recently positioned an array of Aegis destroyers, which excel in ballistic missile defense,

Complete and utter bullshit.


ARLEIGH BURKE - class Guided Missile Destroyer USS Mason-DDG-87
Armament 1 x 5"/62 RF, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 90 VLS Cells,
2 SH-60B helicopters, 8 Harpoon Missiles, 6 x 12.75" TT.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01087.htm

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is a short range missile intended to provide self-protection for surface ships.
globalsecurity.org
The Harpoon missile provides the Navy and the Air Force with a common missile for air, ship, and submarine launches. The weapon system uses mid-course guidance with a radar seeker to attack surface ships.
globalsecurity.org


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

Armament: • 90 cells Mk 41 vertical launch systems
• BGM-109 Tomahawk
• RGM-84 Harpoon SSM (not in Flight IIa units)
• SM-2 Standard SAM (has an ASuW mode)
• RIM-162 ESSM SAM (DDG-79 onward)
• RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC
• one 5 inch (127 mm/54) Mk-45 (lightweight gun) (DDG-51 through -80)
• one 5 inch (127 mm/62) Mk-45 mod 4 (lightweight gun) (DDG-81 on)
• two 20 mm Phalanx CIWS (DDG-51 through -83, several later units)
• two Mark 32 triple torpedo tubes (six Mk-46 or Mk-50 torpedoes, Mk-54 in the near future)

please explain to me where the anti ballistic missile system is.... oh you mean the one that is being replaced.....the Phalynx.... because of the Mach 4+ Sunburn cruise missile

[samsingh]

22. wouldn't a strike be illegal

[samsingh]

23. wouldn't a strike be illegal

[OneBlueSky]

24. since when has legality been a controlling consideration for BushCo? . . .

not only would an attack on Iran be illegal, it would be the high water mark of BushCo insanity, proving conclusively that those in power are totally out of touch with reality and, to coin a phrase, "out of their fucking minds" . . .

attacking Iran would constitute a prima facie case for immediate impeachment . . . would Congress recognize this truth and act accordingly? . . . not a snowball's chance in hell . . .

what people have to understand is that American foreign policy is not set by the president or the Congress, but by the corporate entities that fund the president and the Congress and make untold billions in excess profits from American wars . . . oil companies, defense contractors, arms dealers, agribusiness conglomerates, mercenary armies, and a host of other corporate interests are the ones calling the shots . . . our government is simply their vehicle for funneling all those billions into their corporate coffers . . .

militaristic capitalism at its finest . . .

[samsingh]

29. i think you're right

[FogerRox]

25. If the President does it, is not illegal, didnt Nixon say that ?

[samsingh]

27. Congress has to approve - that's why

even a slimeball like bush had to get Congressional approval to attack Iraq

[samsingh]

28. Congress has to approve - that's why

even a slimeball like bush had to get Congressional approval to attack Iraq

[IDemo]

26. "such a shock can be cushioned by increased supply by Saudi Arabia". Bzzzt!

Oh well.

Further Evidence of Saudi Arabia's Oil Production Decline

Saudis: Not boosting oil production for the U.S.

ASPO and Peak oil theorists challenge Saudi Arabia