maddog88

The U.S. government is looking for any excuse it can find to start a war with Iran. I'm quessing if they don't find one they'll probably stage another gulf of tonken style incident in order to kick off a war. Just like they did with Veitnam. Any attack on Iran could easily kick off world war three. Everyone needs to keep watching this situation. That way if they do start a war with Iran we will all know who to blame.

Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group

Debbie

Out of respect for our service members and anyone else who really cares about this time period the correct spellings of 2 words above are Vietnam and Gulf of Tonkin.

dalem

Excellent. I'll be blaming people who get their news from infowars.net.

-dale

TopHatter

Well said

The guy that wrote that article is hilarious:
Apparently now the media is in on this "arch neo-con" plot to bait Iran.

GVChamp

Of course. Bush pays them off with oil profits, don't ya know. It's all clearly detailed in our certified book "The Idiots Guide to Conquering the World and Making Profits."

__________________
"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

CMartel

I think America and Bushitler will use the slightest excuse to send the Imperial Forces of Jesus's America into Persia. Like if Mr. Dinner Jacket sends a nuke over into occupied Palestine...something small like that.

Dreadnought

Baiting Iran? I think you have that backwards Iran is baiting all countries at this point. The Russians have built up their arms and still this Iranian president wants to play games with the Atomic Inpectors. The U.S. is merely calling the bluff. And ofcourse your going to blame the U.S. president for backing up their words they stated last year that they will not permit Iran to have nuclear arms. If that is baiting then im dam GLAD my country is baiting a terrorist regime. Obviously diplomacy is out the window but I guess thats the U.S. fault as well as baiting? Get real!

Do you think if we get a Demorcratic president that things will change? Wake up friend the U.S. wether controlled by a Republican president or a Democratic president
is and I quote "NOT GOING TO ALLOW IRAN TO HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON" so flame on against Bush but you will find either party will carry out this vision. So who are we to blame then?

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Dreadnought

Dale,
I find it hard to believe that people waste their time writing such horseshit. I find it even funnier the people that believe them without being able to see clear through of the motivation behind it.

jjacobs43

One person to blame is Cheney for nixing Iran's attempt at compromising with us a fews ago thus creating an environment in Iran that allowed for the election of Ahmadinejad and more hostility towards us and Isreal.

Dreadnought

"A top US diplomat has confirmed that a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group has been deployed to the Gulf in order to send a clear signal to Iran that they will be crushed if they continue to defy the wishes of the US government by enriching uranium."

Didnt he leave something out? Like England,France,China,Israel,Russia and the rest of the U.N.? Seems funny just to name the U.S.. dont it?

The U.S. sent the USS John C. Stennis there as support of the USS Eisenhower and both are supporting missions in Iraq and Afghanistan with flight ops and Intel.

The editor shows his dismay with the U.S. and its a very clear and very one sided article from a sight that is not even syndicated by either party. Hell I might as well have written my own article quoting such and such and bend it to my own likeing as the autor clearly shows. And in further those "patriot missles" are purely defensive missles and would do absolutely nothing as far as attacking Iran goes.

Do us a favor unless you would like to be added to the new wing in the WAB TROLL ZOO. I would do much further research in your articles before backing them. There are many that see right through trolling no matter where it hides and its rather embarrassing.Especially to the men and women here that serve or have served.

Dreadnought

Are you under the impression that Cheyney came up with that by himself?
Umm Intel and Joint Chiefs come to my mind friend. Cheyney has not the power to do such on his own and if you know how that process works then your post would not conceed that he did.

Cheyney could not possibly have had ANYTHING to do with Ahmadinejad's election. The clerics would have elected him irregardless because he is under reigns of the clerics and has contempt for the West. The clerics dont want to loose their hold upon their nation so they elect hardliners to keep their people and culture in line. While he answers to the clerics.

Although NOW it has backfired and they are unhappy with him for taunting the West and not doing one dam thing for his nation which he promised upon his election. Things like Jobs, Oppertunity, Housing and improving the lives of his people. Which he hasnt and now they want him out.

In another view dont you think they could have tried MUCH HARDER to talk to the U.S. instead of telling the World this place needs to be whiped from the earth etc etc. The Holocust was faked. And ofcourse lets not forget the past and the hostage crisis we had together.

Yeah I can really blame them for not wanting to talk to Iran.

jjacobs43

Yes, I am under the impression that Cheney came up with it and that he ignored Colin Powell along with many others who wanted to jump on the idea. Cheney's reasoning was that "we don't talk to evil". This has been reported and confirmed through a couple different sources inside the administration.

Dreadnought

So apparently you are under the impression that Cheyney makes those decisions all by himself and for his own reasonings yes?

Well if he did then he is more powerfull then the President himself.

Dept. of State: International Information Programs: Publications: Outline of U.S. Government

As follows:


Powers in Foreign Affairs

Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls — subject to confirmation by the Senate — and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials. With the secretary of state, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments. On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where chiefs of state meet for direct consultation. Thus, President Woodrow Wilson headed the American delegation to the Paris conference at the end of World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president since then has sat down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Through the Department of State, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments, and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate "executive agreements" with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.

So would you like to rephrase you argument about Cheyney having any authority to do these things all by his lonesome?

jjacobs43

By Associated Press
January 19, 2007

LONDON — An Iranian offer to help America stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, told BBC's "Newsnight" in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Mr. Wilkerson said, Mr. Cheney vetoed the deal.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment" to strike a deal, Mr. Wilkerson said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of ‘We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."

A spokesman for the State Department said yesterday that he wasn't aware of the Iranian letter.

Dreadnought

Umm I would be inlined to believe an article from the U.S. Constitution above ANY reuters reports.