Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
While everyone today is focused on President Bush's announcement about a troop surge in Iraq, we're all missing another part of his speech that might be even more important. Did you hear this?
"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops...I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will (also)...deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."
The Real Story is that if you want to solve Iraq, you first have to solve Iran. I understand that it's the last thing the American people want to hear but we've got to stop kidding ourselves into thinking that ANY new strategy will work if it doesn't include figuring out how to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and trying to control the entire Middle East.
Last month the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is made up of six Arab states, met in Saudi Arabia and did a lot of talking about the threats from Iran. According to a participant, the leaders reached the conclusion that Iran has already drawn up plans to take-over Iraq once the U.S. backs out. They also determined that Iran is increasingly putting a stranglehold on Lebanon, by funding Hezbollah, and on Syria, a country that is dependent on them for support.
Now, picture yourself as a leader in, say, Saudi Arabia. You're sitting there and watching how Iran is not only actively working to take over three countries, but also starting a nuclear program that no one is doing anything about.
So you get together with the other five countries in the Gulf Council and come up with a great plan. You decide that you're interested in starting a "peaceful" nuclear program too! "That's right," you said, "if Iran is going to have nukes, then so are we!"
But that creates a whole other problem. The Gulf Council is only made up of six countries, so what about the Arab states that aren't members, like Egypt -- they can't be left out! So their President does exactly what any of us would do. He calls a press conference and says:
"We don't want nuclear arms in the area but we are obligated to defend ourselves...It is irrational that we sit and watch from the
sidelines when we might be attacked at any moment."
Is it starting to sound just a little bit like a nuclear arms race yet? It should, because that's exactly what's happening even though NO ONE wants to admit it. And don't fool yourself, it IS about weapons, not fuel. These countries are literally floating on oil and it's not like they to deal with California environmentalist whack-jobs yelling at them about finding clean fuel. In fact, Iran has flat out admitted that they might use the technology for weapons, but no one is listening! Their Chief Nuclear Envoy said that they really want to use nuclear technology peacefully, but, that, "the situation could change" if his country were threatened.
Oh, well that makes me feel a lot better - especially when Iran has already said over and over again that we're already threatening them just by our very existence! Remember, the whole "great Satan" thing?
Stop Iran and you not only stop the nuclear arms race before the entire middle east is a parking lot made of glass, but you also do the one thing everyone seems to actually care about: you win the war in Iraq.
The Real Story
Saw this on television earlier and i wanted to take a closer look because it was quite and interesting dialogue. This is what I thought was interesting:
I disagree with the author's premise. If on this very day we had a twenty foot high, twenty foot thick concrete wall with imbedded glass and concerntina wire on top, 2-mile deep minefield, and motion sensors evey 25 yards .....in other words, managed to effectively seal off the Iranian border ... the factional infighting in Iraq would be the same.
.....
I don't agree. Iran and also Syria contribute fighters, weapons and money to the instigators in Iraq.
No I understood that. But always follow the money and gunpowder. If they had no funding and weapons they'd be like the Palis, tossing rocks at one another.
How do you explain that? We agree that they'll always be fighting, but the degree is dependent on the money and weapons given to them.
...
Not for us. We don't know how to seal off a border.
They got past rock-throwing during WWI. They'll get their weapons regardless. We can no more stop that than we can enforce our own Southern border.
Iran and Syria are not the only places weapons and supplies come from. Arabs move in and out fo Arab nations like we move between states. You would have to seal off the entire Iraqi border; which, is not feasible.
Not for us. We don't know how to seal off a border.
I think the more interesting information is the rest of the Arab countries demanding nuclear arms.
However, do you think you can ever stop the infighting if you don't stop the source of arms and cash supporting the infighting? You have to stop the room from flooding before you can drain it of water.
We know how, we just lack the will!
If you plug one hole and have six others you can hardly declare the room secure.
Originally posted by Dilloduck
Tell me---Just WHO exacty is WE ??
Originally posted by Dilloduck
I love the "we" thing.
Originally posted by Dilloduck
Reckon I can withdraw a few hundred K from the treasury ?
The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course.
again true, but if you dont start somewhere it's never going to be plugged.
