So, what do you think? Invade Iran in June?

thebullet

Rebel without applause
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Posts
1,247
SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN,
‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS
By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in
Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also
asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.


On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is
the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would
set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had
manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist
claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret
reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific
slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the
devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.
 
What with US empire-building out-stretched of its armed forces, isn't it more economically logical to use the Israeli Air force instead?

I mean, US is in debt up to its eyeballs to Chinese Yuan. EU and its Euro's streangth is more appealing to Chinese central banks.

I see George W kissing some Chinese butts after he try schomoozing "Old" European asses (kinda like Nixon in China in 1974).

P.S.
Yeah, yeah.

I read the poem.
 
Personally, I think the man is making the whole thing up. People like him, with an agenda like he has, do that. I don't think the government is any more honest but I don't think they are any more dishonest either.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Personally, I think the man is making the whole thing up. People like him, with an agenda like he has, do that. I don't think the government is any more honest but I don't think they are any more dishonest either.

Depends on how you look at it. The U.S. most definately has their eye on Iran. I would think our government wouldn't be stupid enough to go after Iran right now, what with the fact that we're already in a war. But you never know.
Also, it's hard to say how deep the U.S. was into the Iraq election, but it would be stupid to believe that they've stepped back completely. Like in Afghanistan, they've no doubt been trying to keep things where they'll still be able to control things. I don't think they're stuffing ballots, but that wouldn't be necessary anyway.
It's like what Michael Moore does. Takes the truth and manipulates it even worse than the government does. It really sucks when you can't believe either side.
 
Back
Top