Report: IAF choppers unload equipment 'meant for attacking a Muslim state at Saudi airport (Haaretz)

It's starting to feel like the lead up to Iraq.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.

are ye actually muslim or are ye just adopting a "look" to mess with folks?

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.


how could the obama government possibly justify ANY involvement in a surprise / pre-emptive attack on iran?

wouldn't that mark a complete PR nightmare for the united states & its foreign policy?

instead of making one new enemy at a time they would be making dozens...

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.


how could the obama government possibly justify ANY involvement in a surprise / pre-emptive attack on iran?

wouldn't that mark a complete PR nightmare for the united states & its foreign policy?

instead of making one new enemy at a time they would be making dozens...

are ye actually muslim or are ye just adopting a "look" to mess with folks?

Whatever it is...it ain't much.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.



It's pretty obvious...look how all the politicians are claiming Iran is a grave threat, and is developing nuclear weapons, not as defense, but as offense.

Which is worrisome...

So, yeah. We are going to attack Iran, you bet.

Then, who knows? But the plan has been in motion for a long time. Even when they went into Iraq, they wanted Iran, hell, they have been screaming and shouting about Iran and the dangers thereof, for years.

We have our marching orders.

The US/Israel, either together, or both ARE GOING to attack Iran. We all know this now.

But, is it wrong, or right? My gut instinct tells me it's a monumental mistake.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.



It's pretty obvious...look how all the politicians are claiming Iran is a grave threat, and is developing nuclear weapons, not as defense, but as offense.

Which is worrisome...

So, yeah. We are going to attack Iran, you bet.

Then, who knows? But the plan has been in motion for a long time. Even when they went into Iraq, they wanted Iran, hell, they have been screaming and shouting about Iran and the dangers thereof, for years.

We have our marching orders.

The US/Israel, either together, or both ARE GOING to attack Iran. We all know this now.

But, is it wrong, or right? My gut instinct tells me it's a monumental mistake.


The core plans were crafted under the Clinton Administration for both Iraq and Iran. They have obviously been revised over the years, but such military options are usually quite aged before being actuated.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.


how could the obama government possibly justify ANY involvement in a surprise / pre-emptive attack on iran?

wouldn't that mark a complete PR nightmare for the united states & its foreign policy?

instead of making one new enemy at a time they would be making dozens...

The core plans were crafted under the Clinton Administration for both Iraq and Iran.

The core plans were crafted under the Clinton Administration for both Iraq and Iran.


so PNAC is merely a follow up of what was initially planned for years already?

even this think tank had to have its base for coming up with the complexity of ideas for an america in the 21st century.

[link to www.newamericancentury.org]

Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq. On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.


how could the obama government possibly justify ANY involvement in a surprise / pre-emptive attack on iran?

wouldn't that mark a complete PR nightmare for the united states & its foreign policy?

instead of making one new enemy at a time they would be making dozens...


Not if they create another FALSE FLAG event prior to the attack....They think we're dumb enough to fall for it twice....well some are.

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.


how could the obama government possibly justify ANY involvement in a surprise / pre-emptive attack on iran?

wouldn't that mark a complete PR nightmare for the united states & its foreign policy?

instead of making one new enemy at a time they would be making dozens...


Not if they create another FALSE FLAG event prior to the attack....They think we're dumb enough to fall for it twice....well some are.


It would be more to Pentagon planning to invoke such a level of tension and paranoia as to illicit an Iranian reaction or miscalculation that can be used as pretext.

I think, however, Iran is not the objective, but rather this is all part of deterrence aimed at keeping Iran on the sidelines while other objectives are realized.

wow you post that as if something is wrong with think tanks... thinking? every policy point of view has a think tank as they should!

I can tell the United States is running an operation, but the scope and objective is unknown.


how could the obama government possibly justify ANY involvement in a surprise / pre-emptive attack on iran?

wouldn't that mark a complete PR nightmare for the united states & its foreign policy?

instead of making one new enemy at a time they would be making dozens...


Not if they create another FALSE FLAG event prior to the attack....They think we're dumb enough to fall for it twice....well some are.


It would be more to Pentagon planning to invoke such a level of tension and paranoia as to illicit an Iranian reaction or miscalculation that can be used as pretext.

I think, however, Iran is not the objective, but rather this is all part of deterrence aimed at keeping Iran on the sidelines while other objectives are realized.



what other objectives might those be, IYO?