Strategic asset or rogue state? Israel’s threats to Iran ‘concern’ Pentagon

More drumbeats of an Iran attack. AP is reporting that Israeli president Shimon Peres says the “international community is closer to pursuing a military solution to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program than a diplomatic one.”

This won’t help the Israeli relationship with the U.S. Today on CNN, Fareed Zakaria deplored the “huge cost” to the U.S. of a possible Israeli attack on Iran, and Barbara Starr, who is said to be a mouthpiece for top Pentagon officials, expressed concern about it. From her online piece: 

The United States has become increasingly concerned Israel could be preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear program, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.

 In the past, the U.S. officials felt they had assurances from Israel that it would give warning to the United States of any attack.

“Now that doesn’t seem so ironclad,” the official said…

The official underscored long-standing U.S. military concerns about the risk of hostilities to American troops in the region, both those still in Iraq and U.S. naval forces and ground forces throughout the Persian Gulf.  The official also strongly emphasized the United States has no current intention of striking Iran.

Daily Beast’s Bruce Riedel deplores the idea. Rick Perry loves it. Herman Cain thinks Israel is attacking China.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 0 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Charon says:

    Politicians are clueless. I bet none of them could even pass the Sri Lanka test (find Sri Lanka on a map).

    The US might have been ‘hinting’ that a military option was on their table, but only to satisfy Israel. The US can not afford it. The consequences would be drastic even at the very least (like $15/gallon gas). The worst case scenario is not just a regional war either, but a global (nuclear) one. It is in no human being’s best interest to support a military strike on Iran. Rick Perry should go to prison for even saying what he said. A military prison, after he is stripped of his citizenship.

    • lysias says:

      A regional war in the Middle East would be Israel’s opportunity to practice some ethnic cleansing and rid itself of its Palestinian problem.

      Especially if the Palestinians and/or Hezbollah can be gotten to attack Israel once war breaks out.

      • seafoid says:

        Are you insane, Lysias? World War 1 would be the Hapsburg Empire’s opportunity to sort out Serbia once and for all.

        • lysias says:

          You seem to think I would approve of Israel taking the opportunity I suggest. Just to be clear, I do not.

          World War I, on the other hand, is a good comparison. The hotheads in Vienna were anxious to go to war to eliminate the Serbian threat. One reason their allies in Berlin backed them up is that Germany feared the loss of her sole ally if Austria broke up.

    • MRW says:

      Don’t strip his citizenship, then you can’t put him in jail for life for treason. ;-)

      • James says:

        almost no one gets tried for treason anymore… bush and cheney would have been two very good candidates for this, but as we see, ain’t nothing happening.. instead bradley manning is the one in solitary confinement with no sanity coming from the powers that be, in sight.. this is what happens when you expose the gov’t for the treasonous gov’t it is – you go to jail instead! welcome to the land of the dead and apathetic…

        • MRW says:

          Only you Canucks threaten Bush and Cheney. You’re the only ones who have the balls.

        • James says:

          lol.. canucks and americans share a lot in common… we have an idiot for prime minister here in canada right now who is trying very hard to be like bush 2… i am sure he will do a number of bone headed things before we see his ass out the door..

        • Charon says:

          Canada can do so much better than Stephen Harper and his cronies. How did that even happen? The USA on the other hand cannot do any better. We should know better, but alas a Bush 3, 4, 5, etc. would hardly be a surprise.

      • Citizen says:

        Treason? How about the zionist fiefdom, US House Foreign Affairs Committee? They just passed out a bill banning use of diplomacy with Iran, essentially forcing our POTUS to go to war on Iran. This was never done with Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, or Cuba in JFK Era. AIPAC and its key jewish water carriers in Congress should be brought up on charges of treason.
        link to huffingtonpost.com

        AIPAC must be feeling its oats after forcing Obama to vote against Palestinian membership in UNESCO.

        • MRW says:

          The HOUSE is dictating foreign policy to the Pres? It can’t. Not its purview. Foreign policy is the President’s job. I realize those schmucks railroaded the Palestinian law that affected UNESCO through two decades ago. I haven’t checked into when it happened, or under which Pres.

          Is this a bill or a law, Citizen?

          This country is a mess.

        • American says:

          Yea, look at the top committee members of the majority and minority.

          Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida, Chairman
          Chris Smith, New Jersey
          Dan Burton, Indiana
          Elton Gallegly, California, Vice Chairman

          Howard Berman, California, Ranking Member
          Gary Ackerman, New York
          Eni Faleomavaega, American Samoa
          Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
          Brad Sherman, California
          Eliot Engel, New York

    • seafoid says:

      Shimon Peres says the “international community is closer to pursuing a military solution to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program than a diplomatic one.”

      14 countries voted with Israel at UNESCO. 7 of them were real countries.

  2. Avi_G. says:

    Frankly, I don’t believe for a moment that the Pentagon is against an Israeli attack on Iran.

    Granted, the Pentagon does have its concerns. For example, it is concerned about US troops stationed in the region, in countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

    But, one must keep in mind three important pieces of information:

    1) US Troops are to be withdrawn from Iraq by next month.

    2) Press reports from Britain indicating that Britain was preparing an attack on Iran could be a clue into what is currently taking place behind the scenes. It’s quite possible that only Britain will join Israel in attacking Iran, thus the US would at least officially not participate, hence minimize the risk of an Iranian attack on its troops in the Gulf.

    3) CIA officials have been making the rounds in the region, namely Egypt, and Bahrain in what newspapers have characterized as an attempt to prepare the groundwork for an attack on Iran.

    I would treat the information from Barbara Starr as disinformation, a deliberate attempt at misdirection. And that is what, “[A] mouthpiece for top Pentagon officials” usually does.

    • Shingo says:

      Actually Avi,

      It is believed Panetta travelled to the region to try and prevent an attack on Iran.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        That may be what he was sent to do, but whether that is what he is trying to accomplish? Totally different question, and an important one considering what we know about the CIA as it exists today.

      • Avi_G. says:

        Shingo, I have that on good authority.

        A very respectable journalist in Egypt, one might think of him as the Arab version of Robert Fisk, or a Walter Cronkite x 20, has reported that Panetta was in Egypt attempting to get guarantees from Moslem movements, including the Brotherhood, that in the event of an attack on Iran, that they would stay out of the ensuing melee.

        What is the source for the information you came across?

    • Charon says:

      The Libya NATO operation was too costly for the UK. And obviously the US is broke. In the end it really doesn’t matter because all these wars are paid with borrowed money that’s never going to get paid back. I just prey there are more people with there heads at least partially on their shoulders who have power over these decisions. The people calling for a strike obviously do not care about the consequences. They will care once it is carried out because even in the least case scenario, the middle class all over the world will be screwed.

      Iran can AND WILL seal off Strait of Hormuz blocking 90% of the oil from the gulf. That means gas prices will be unaffordable and heads will roll, starting with the war mongers. Worst case scenario of course is a nuclear holocaust. If the CIA really had any brains, they would be monitoring the key decision makers for identification and then sending their Jason Bournes in to deal with ‘em.

  3. Rick Perry is a very cunning, deceiving psychopath ,who should not hold anything except a broom to sweep floors in the public restrooms.
    Or,
    he should be send ASAP on the first kamikaze plane to some remote, desolated area. What a creep.

  4. lysias says:

    Somewhat off topic, today’s Washington Post carries an obituary for Marla Gilson, a lobbyist and Democratic Party activist who for more than a decade had been the chief lobbyist for Hadassah. She began her career as a congressional staffer for Democrats in Congress, and then joined AIPAC as a lobbyist and director of community relations.

    She stayed involved in Democratic Party politics. She met her husband Carl Tuvin, a lobbyist and public relations consultant, at a party for another Democratic activist. The couple married in 1984, while Ms. Gilson was working on former vice president Walter Mondale’s unsuccessful presidential campaign.

    From 1997 to 2010, she headed the Washington action office of Hadassah.

    At a 2009 meeting with Jewish leaders at the White House, she made a point of thanking President Obama in person for signing an executive order ending a Bush-era limit on federal tax money for embryonic stem cell research.

    She was laid off from Hadassah in 2010 when the group lost millions of dollars in the massive fraud perpetrated by Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff. The Association of Jewish Aging Services recruited her to be its leader, and she was diagnosed six months later with leukemia.

    Says a lot about what goes on in D.C.

  5. James says:

    clearly israel is a rogue state and a fanatical one at that if it’s contemplating shit like this… it’s really disturbing how a country that is supposed to be founded in part on their own possible genocide is considering expressing the same to others here… what is up with these crazies?

    my answer – they are scared of their own friggin shadow but unable or more likely) unwilling to go in for counseling…..

    • Charon says:

      They’re totally rouge.. Pariah state with only the US to protect them and only because we’re shackled. It’s like in Aladdin when Jafar is in control of the genie. The genie is the US and Jafar is Israel.

      If Iran had nuclear warheads ready to go today, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. North Korea has them. Iran is not dumb enough to ignite mutually assured destruction against their own people. Here’s the thing, if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear site they will likely use bunker buster nukes. In a hypothetical ‘nuclear Iran’ scenario, if Iran nuked Israel, Israel would be gone with only their second-strike hidden subs to counter-attack. There is enough US/NATO activity in that area to minimize any of that damage.

      Both scenarios are horrific, but the Iran-nuking-Israel is actually the lesser of the two evils when you think about it. Innocent people would die, but there would be less in an Iran-nukes-first scenario. If Israeli strikes Iran, the US ME bases and Saudi oil fields are at risk along with Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz cutting off most of the world’s oil. Depending on the response to any of this, it could escalate to nuclear world war (but not in the Iran-strikes-Israel instance).

      Whatever Israel says about not allowing Iran to go nuclear, don’t listen to them. It’s nonsense. They were wrong about Iraq in ’81 and ‘intelligence’ was wrong about Iraqi WMD. I welcome a nuclear-armed Iran to defend against the Zionist psychopaths.

      • andrew r says:

        “Both scenarios are horrific, but the Iran-nuking-Israel is actually the lesser of the two evils when you think about it.”

        And the best part, Palestine will be open for the refugees to return. Sure the country will be irradiated and may never grow anything again, but you can’t make an omelet without sprouting a few mushrooms.

        • James says:

          oh jesus… this is the kind of insane thinking these freaks hell bent on war encourage… it is a no win situation letting them lead and fear( and more arms sales) seems to be their only real guiding principle…

      • Chaos4700 says:

        WHY do people think Iran will attack Saudi oil fields? That doesn’t even make sense.

  6. ToivoS says:

    I think it is very unlikely that the US will support an Israeli attack or perform one itself. Opposition to such a venture is very strong inside the US military especially in the Navy. Remember Admiral Fallon in 2006 or so cut his career short by publicly stating that the US will not attack Iran.

    The reason is interesting but very rarely discussed. I think the reason for this is because Iran has the capacity to sink US warships in the Persian Gulf. war. The weapon is a series of antiship cruise missiles that fly faster to 2x the speed of sound (i.e. this makes them invulnerable to our Aegis antimissile defenses). They were developed by the Soviet Union, perfected by Russia and China and the Russians have been providing them to Iran. Google ‘Sunburn-22′ or ‘yakhont’ and Persian Gulf if interested in the details.

    In any case these weapons are perfect for the Persian Gulf given their lethal range of 200 – 300 km. These carry conventional warheads and could make any naval vessel a sitting duck if it came within 300 km of an enemy shore. Our naval base in Bahrain is about 200km from Iran.

    In short a war with Iran might prove to all that surface fleets are obsolete for fighting modern wars. How would the Navy justify its appropriations if that were to happen.

    • Sin Nombre says:

      ToivoS wrote:

      “I think it is very unlikely that the US will support an Israeli attack or perform one itself…. The reason is interesting ….”

      Given ToivoS’ usual nuanced comments I know it was unintentional but I think this comes off as a bit … essentialist, appearing as if there’s just one grand consideration that explains—or will explain—everything. I remember seeing similar such things confidently predicting why Bush was bluffing about invading Iraq: It was the scuds, it was the fearsome Republican Guards, it was the huge number of Iraqi tanks, and etc. and so forth.

      Rightly or wrongly ultimately, I just don’t think our decision-makers take only one consideration into account, and indeed even with undisputed big considerations their powers of rationalization to surmount (or dismiss) such things are vast.

      After all this ship-killing capacity of Iran’s that ToivoS speaks of might indeed be seen—again by an essentialist—as THE reason that of *course* the U.S. will have to support any Israeli attack or indeed launch our own attack in the lead: Since Iran has this ship-killing ability, such argument would go, and since after any Israeli attack Iran would certainly start to use it to go after U.S. ships, then once Israel tells the U.S. it *is* going to attack the U.S. must take the lead or at least coordinate with it so as to pre-emptively take out these ship-killers.

      Indeed, on paper at least it can even *sound* like a damned persuasive theory in fact.

      Again though I wouldn’t rest my whole thinking on just one such skinny plinth. There’s lots of others, not least somethat far more certain than these ship-killers whacking our Navy which is that regardless of how any attacks went the price of oil would shoot through the roof and the damage to our already teetering economy might be positively scary.

      Again though I just think ToivoS unintentionally came off as sounding overly “narrowly-perspected” here, with there still however being a helluva lot of validity in his identifying this missile issue as one that no doubt does weigh heavily in the big balance for sure.

      • ToivoS says:

        As someone who predicted confidently that the US would not attack Iraq as late as January of 2003 I do have a tarnished credibility. My reasons were not those you mention. It was clear that Saddam’s military did not stand a chance against US military might. The WMDs it was clear at that time were over hyped and militarily irrelevant. I figured then that if we conquered Iraq we would end up facing an insurrection that we couldn’t defeat. I was both totally wrong and right at the same time.

        However, today the US Navy is quite aware of the destructive potential of these antiship missiles. If that worry has percolated up the chain of command I really cannot say. My point is that there are powerful forces inside the US military that do not want test the efficacies of those cruise missiles.

        I have to agree with you at one level — even if rational people can see that an attack on Iran will have disasterous consequences it does not mean that our government will be deterred from doing so.

        I bring up these points for another reason. First there is very, very little discussion of the vulnerability of our naval forces in the Persian Gulf. I think this should be openly discussed. Imagine what happens if in the result to say an Israeli attack, Iran responds and actually sinks a number of our ships. We could be witnessing hundreds if not thousands of killed US sailors. That would be a shock to our whole country. How would we respond? Nuclear war anyone. As we all know that the current administration is keeping all options on the table.

        • Les says:

          Add to what you write the reports that the US is sending additional ships into the Gulf. Those who profit from supplying the Navy with such big ticket items must be the ones in charge of US war policy.

        • Sin Nombre says:

          And I say again noting these ship-killers was a real astute point on your part, ToivoS.

          Moreover, I agree with the general thrust of your thinking to the effect that … there’s just *such* little upside to an attack on Iran that it’s hard to see us coming anywhere *close* to participating in it with Israel.

          Not least, in my view, due to the answer to the simple question of … what then? All such an attack would accomplish is, at best, set *back* Iran’s alleged program. So that if it even *did* have a program the idea would have to be we bomb every five years or so, with diminishing effectiveness, and if Iran *doesn’t have a program well bombing ‘em is about the best way possible to encourage them—and others—to sure as hell get nukes as fast as they can.

          Plus, for all the talk of Iranian-sponsored terrorism against the U.S., my belief is that same has not even been half-hearted, and probably the work of this or that extremist faction in power. We bomb ‘em though, and what’s keeping their gloves on in this respect? They got lots of oil revenues, and time, so why not work on, say, some really smart, determined program of terrorism on U.S. soil? After all, they’ve been attacked, there’s no statute of limitations on retaliation, so what if it takes ‘em five years to boil up some crap to put in the NYC water system?

          It’s just … stupid.

          And yet, to me I don’t think anyone can say with any kind of certainty we won’t attack or join Israel because the big unknown to me is just how weak we are vis a vis what is, essentially, Israeli blackmail. That is, would Obama just simply face down Israel if it said, point blank, “we are going to attack, join us or not”? Because at that point the only way out for Obama is to say “Go ahead, and we are going to denounce it and not lend you a whit of support for it.”

          Thus, it’s the character of Obama’s guts that seems to me the biggie here, and just can’t be known. Yeah he’s been a wuss so far with them, but this is a far bigger thing, and I’d like to think he’d draw the line at stepping our asses into the catastrophe such an attack would mean.

          In fact, I suspect he would, esp. given that Bush essentially drew that line reportedly, and he knows it, giving him some support there.

          So in the end I guess I’d agree with you: I’d bet there will be no Israeli or U.S. attack. I’d bet the Israelis are *trying* to have it otherwise, but know that if they can’t move Obama that’s okay too because at the very least they’ll get some concession from him for stronger sanctions on Iran, more money to them and etc. and so forth.

          So it’s kinda a win/win for Israel either way, even if I believe that Netanyahu’s very first hope is that indeed he can get us to attack.

          That’s my take anyway, and I’m sticking to it. For at least the next few hours.

        • Citizen says:

          Reminds me how Israel, via, Kissinger, seduced Nixon, no lover of Jews, to send Israel all those war supplies–Nixon even doubled the list Israel wanted, taking tons of stuff from our own front line troops–I think that was in 1973? Anyway, Israel put on a big display of preparing to uses nukes against the Arab Coalition, and Israeli leaders threatened to the US it was going to resort to nukes.

        • Theo says:

          Yes, I remember!
          Our Navy pilots were complaining that Israel had the new F16s and they had to wait another year or so.
          We were always very generous to good friends!!

        • American says:

          Don’t feel bad Tovio, I didn’t think we would invade Iraq either…..didn’t think the WH or congress was that crazy.
          But that was before I knew just how insane Washington is.

        • irishmoses says:

          The F16 is not a Navy plane. It’s an Air Force plane.

        • Theo says:

          Thanks for the correction.

          This was about 34-35 years ago, also a long time, we had two navy pilots as guests and they complained. If that was the F16 or F17 or any other designation is irrevelant, revelant is the fact that the israelis got our planes before our Navy or AF.

      • MRW says:

        ToivoS is absolutely right about those Russian missiles. There are two levels of them, and we have NOTHING in our arsenal that can stop them. There was an article in Bloomberg three or four years where our military guys admitted it under grilling from journalists at a conference.

        The devastating SS-N-SS Sunburn has been replaced by the even more outrageously lethal SS-N-25 Onyx. We know the Iranians have Sunburns, and they are aimed at the Gulf. We don’t know about the Onyx.

        The Sunburn can fly 150 kilometers at Mach 2.1 (1,520 mph) at an average altitude of 60 feet. The Onyx uses the same launch tubes as the Sunburn, but flies at 200+ kilometers at Mach 2.9 (2,100 mph), at an average altitude of only 45 feet. And they can be controlled to hit their mark in the middle of the ship (they’re not torpedoes). 45 feet above the water level.

        The Naval Commander of a 93,000-ton US aircraft carrier only sees it in time to have two minutes to react. I am not exaggerating. It’s called Fire & Forget. This is 5,500 pounds of missile striking a carrier at a terminal velocity of 2,460 feet per second operating under under automatic flight management 45 feet off the water. The landing deck of an aircraft carrier is 57 feet off the water.

        The military guys in the Bloomberg article finally admitted that one of these would obliterate an aircraft carrier. Obliterate. Wipe it off the face of the earth. The impact is called Heat and Light. That’s all you see. Poof.

        Russia, in 1995, refused to sell us a Sunburn and even refused to let us see it at an arm’s show.

        Seafoid, the Americans have nothing to stop one and nothing to match it. There is no anti-missile contraption for this one. Ask any military guy in the know.

        • Am_America says:

          a sunk US air craft carrier would be the end of the Iranian regime as we know it.

        • seafoid says:

          Aircraft carriers are very 20th century.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          I’m pretty sure the Iranians would only attack aircraft carriers that were already launching fighters into Iranian airspace.

          AM_Radio, do you have any idea what your stupid invasion of Iraq has done to our military strength?

        • ToivoS says:

          Am_American you are probably right. If Israel attacks Iran, and if Iran responds by sinking a US Aircraft Carrier then that gives Israel and the US the right to obliterate Iran. Those are the Zionist rules as we are supposed to accept them.

        • Taxi says:

          Am_israel,
          An attack on Iran will pancake israel.

        • irishmoses says:

          US aircraft carriers don’t typically operate in the Persian Gulf. It’s too restricted and dangerous plus they have the ability to stand off and allow their aircraft to do the dirty work. If air power was needed against Iran, it would stage from Saudi or Kuwaiti airbases. There would be no reason to risk a carrier or any other major navy assest anywhere near Iran.

          Sinking an oil tanker might work but that would just close down the Gulf to oil traffic which would hurt Iran most of all.

          If Israel tries this crazy stunt I think you would see a proxy war. I doubt Iran would want to go after the US, and I think the US would be reluctant to join in as well.

          The reality is that Israel can’t possibly do this on its own, so I think it is largely bluff hoping Iran can be coerced into stopping its nuke program.

        • ToivoS says:

          Irishmoses it is true thatUS Carriers no longer operate in the Gulf for the simple reason I mentioned above. But if you look at a map fighter or bomber planes from those carriers are too far away to attack Iran’s major targets. That makes them quite irrelevant in an assault against Iran. Unless, of course, those carriers are willing to get close enough to come in range of those missiles.

        • Shingo says:

          a sunk US air craft carrier would be the end of the Iranian regime as we know it.

          No, it would be the end of the US navy as we know it, which is why the US Navy is one of the biggest opponents of an attack on Iran.

        • seafoid says:

          I think it is largely bluff hoping Iran can be coerced into stopping its nuke program

          Number 1 reason the UK has a navy – “because you never know”
          Same for Iran and nuclear weapons

          link to ft.com

          Let’s face it what has Israel got? No oil, no strategic position. It’s been a great ride for the Jewish state but it is way out of its depth now.

        • Theo says:

          I have nothing against removing the iranian regime and replacing it with a democratic one, elected only by the iranians.
          I certainly do not condon destroying an ancient civilized land on the hegemony whim of a fascistic regime in Israel.
          That regime also should be replaced, so I vote to bomb israeli airfields and missile sites, including the Mossad site, perhaps we could regain the respect of the world.

        • MRW says:

          irishmoses,

          The Aircraft carriers in the Gulf right now, and there’s a third on the way:

          CVN-74 John C. Stennis
          CVN-77 George H.W. Bush
          link to gonavy.jp

        • MRW says:

          Shingo’s right: No, it would be the end of the US navy as we know it, which is why the US Navy is one of the biggest opponents of an attack on Iran.

          The planes are on the aircraft carrier, stored below deck at the level where the Onyx or Sunburst would hit.

        • American says:

          Raython claims it’s SeaRam can defeat the Sunburn. But their tests have shown it’s not 100% and never tested in actual battle.
          Last I read on the Sunburns there is only a 25 second response window to intercept it.

        • irishmoses says:

          ToivoS,
          American carriers have smallish refueling tankers to extend the range of their fighter aircraft which can also be refueled by much larger Air Force tankers. In any case, as I mentioned, in any conflict with Iran, much more capable US aircraft would stage from several Saudi bases built specifically for the US for that purpose.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Assuming Saudi Arabia lets us actually use them. Which is an open question if anyone remembers how things have played vis-a-vis Iraq.

          The Saudi regime doesn’t want the US to win, they want everyone else to lose.

        • Am_America says:

          the US would use mostly B-2s and tomahawks for any mission against Iran.

    • pabelmont says:

      Wonderful if true. I was wondering why I didn’t hear the USA military piping up against an attack (by anyone) on Iran. You’re saying they already have. Funny to think that Air Force might like an attack because they have all the modern fly-stuff and an attack could wipe out the rival Navy!

      • MRW says:

        The problem with air strikes over Iran is

        (1) you have to fly over a 14,000 ft. mountain range that traverses NW to SE one-third of the way into the country to get to the targets ISrael claims it wants to hit.
        (2) that mountain range is packed with surface to air missiles embedded deep within it.

      • ToivoS says:

        Pablemont what you say could be so true. I noticed when Admiral Fallon was arguing against an Iranian attack, there were also some voices from within the US Air Force (anonymous of course) saying we should attack.

        A full fledged war in the Persian Gulf could result in the total defeat of the US Navy and the victor of course would be the US Air Force. The US spends close to a trillion dollars each year on the military. Who benefits if the Navy suffers a major defeat? Why the US Air Force for sure. And now that ‘boots on the ground’ is no longer acceptable y and (thereby reducing the Army and the Marines) then the Air Force will gain even more funds for their projects for conducting war without any US casualties.

        Curtis Lemay lives!!

      • annie says:

        pabelmont,

        I was wondering why I didn’t hear the USA military piping up against an attack

        the US military does not ‘pipe up against an attack’ unless the commander in chief authorizes it. they resign first and then share their complaints.

        • pabelmont says:

          Annie, you’re right, of course, in general, which is why Congress should NEVER ask military folks to testify: they are under orders and it is like talking to the administration flaks.

          However, every once in a while we see a general fired when he (appears to) talk(s) out of turn. I assume that in those cases, if he was not drunk or something, he is a patriot, a whistleblower and is ready to suffer the punishment of dismissal.

          We should all recall that soldiers are (theoretically) ready to die for their country, and they must always decide whether they work “for” the country or “for” the president. Whistleblowing is therefore extraordinary and rare and, as you note, the “correct” path is to resign first and then to speak out. (Same at State, i believe.)

    • POA says:

      “I think it is very unlikely that the US will support an Israeli attack or perform one itself”

      You don’t get it. Israel HAS TO involve us, if in fact they attack Iran. They NEED us. So, they will do anything neccesary to make sure we become involved. If you don’t think they will not use a false flag strategy if it is required, you’re an idiot. It is naive to think Israel will attack Iran without a concrete fail-safe strategy to suck us into the conflict.

      • ToivoS says:

        POA for once I agree with you. Israel will not attack if they do not believe they have US support. We all know that there are powerful forces inside the US that are pushing us into war against Iran and they are coordinating their efforts with Israel. I happen to believe that there are also powerful forces inside the US that put our interests first. I also happen to believe that they are more powerful than those who back Israeli interests. I could be wrong, yet again, but I think it is very unlikely that there will be war against Iran.

        • POA says:

          ‘POA for once I agree with you”

          Oh shit. My day has gone from bad to worse.

          “I also happen to believe that they are more powerful than those who back Israeli interests. I could be wrong, yadayadayada….”

          You ARE wrong. You also don’t seem to be paying attention. Observation is usually far more astute than optimism.

        • ToivoS says:

          POA I love it. Guess what? There will not be war against Iran. For reasons I do not fully understand forces in Israel and their backers here in the US are trying to stir up some kind of war hysteria. Why join them in their game? Is it your goal to be known as another useful idiot?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          You know, there were people who believed Bush was just “stirring up war hysteria,” in 2003. We’re still in Iraq eight years later.

        • POA says:

          “Is it your goal to be known as another useful idiot?”

          The “useful idiots” are those such as yourself, who, despite history, choose to give these rabid elitists the benefit of the doubt, and enable them through naivette and unjustified and unreasonable optimism.

          When the bombs fly, it will be in no small part because “useful idiots” like yourself underestimated the extent that power corrupts our leadership. Imagine our leaders doing the unimaginable, and you will be far closer to accurately predicting the future actions of these power crazed narcissists.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Absolutely right, Chaos.

      • Charon says:

        If that assassination plot was one of their false-flag tricks, it was pretty lousy. Of course, the US has gone to war for worse (cough… Gulf of Tonkin…. cough).

        A false flag is the only way they are going to get the US involved. There are missing nukes from the Minot incident (and a lot of mysterious deaths surrounding that case). The insanely irrational support for everything Israel in the US government is deep-seeded in nuclear blackmail. There is just not other explanation. A paper trail of binding agreements has been made for the past 30+ years to make that support ‘official’ legally.

        • pabelmont says:

          Charon, for years I imagined (Fantasy Alert!) a nuke, made in Israel and installed in the air-conditioner at the top of a Wall Street building. Nuclear blackmail against the USA.

          Then there was 9-11, and because the engineering consensus seemed to be that the WTC buildings were brought down by demolition charges (the heat from gasoline fires being too small to melt the steel beams supporting the buildings), the question of who-done-it reduced to “who had the access to plant the demolition charges?” The cover-up seemed purely USA, but only a few voices suggested Israel as culprit. But since there is such tight co-operation between Israel and some (not all, I suppose) USA CIA types and military types, the answer could be that it was a co-operative job.

          Anyway, nuclear blackmail is one way to get the USA to do things not otherwise in our interest. And 9-11 happened. If all the perps wanted war with Afghanistan or Iraq and used 9-11 to get those wars started, then there was no need for blackmail. Otherwise, * * *

        • Keith says:

          PABELMONT- “Then there was 9-11, and because the engineering consensus seemed to be that the WTC buildings were brought down by demolition charges (the heat from gasoline fires being too small to melt the steel beams supporting the buildings), ….”

          The only place such a consensus exists is among the 911 Truther faithful on Mondoweiss who cling to their fantasies in spite of the irrationality of the claim, avoiding a realistic assessment of the “controlled demolition” hypothesis. Let us begin by noting that a “controlled demolition” following an airplane crash is an oxymoron. Once the plane hits, all control goes out the window. Also, any demolition charges in the area of the intense fire would pre-detonate, the fire being much hotter than the flash point of the explosives. In your estimate, how many tons of explosives were involved? How many man hours to preposition these explosives? How done with the floors, ceilings and walls intact in these occupied buildings? Seems to me like a pretty big operation to keep secret. Of course, you can go to websites where PhDs will tell you what you want to hear. None of these, however, will demonstrate how a controlled demolition could be done. Shall we discuss the missile not an airplane striking the pentagon as well? In case you missed it, below is a copy and paste quote from Manuel Garcia, Jr, a physicist, from the CounterPunch website.

          “The popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories (also outlined in a useful Wikipedia entry) has prompted NIST to present a very nice webpage addressing the usual questions of the conspiracy viewpoint, and providing clear descriptions in non-technical English of the physics and engineering explanations embodied in the NIST WTC Towers Final Report .

          Summary of NIST Findings

          The World Trade Center Towers (WTC 1, WTC 2) were tall square buildings with supporting columns grouped along the vertical axis (center) and closely spaced along the perimeter (building faces). A “hat truss,” at the top of each building, tied the outer walls to the central columns; and this truss had a height equal to that of five stories.

          A hijacked airliner was crashed into each building about 10 or 20 stories down from the top. The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core. The exploding fuel from the airliner ignited fires throughout the levels within the impact zone, as well as dropping fire down the stairwells and elevator shafts at the building’s core, and billowing up to higher levels. The shocks of impact and detonation loosened the “fire protection” thermal insulation on steel beams in the impact zone.

          The damaged core columns in the impact zone could no longer hold up all the weight they were meant to carry. The core columns in the upper block now found it necessary to partially hang from the hat truss. The hat truss pressed down much more forcefully on the perimeter columns, transferring the load of the hanging weight. The added compression of the perimeter columns could only be distributed to the three undamaged faces, and because of the irregularity of the damage one face assumed a much higher load than the other two.

          The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. It ignited the many plastic furnishing (carpets, curtains, furniture, equipment cases, clothing, fixtures, office ceilings and partitions), paper items (paper supplies, books, pressed wood), and some structural elements (gypsum wall boards, plastic plumbing), which then continued the fire. The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent.

          The floors in the impact zone sagged because of broken joints to central columns, heat causing their metal framing to soften, weaken and expand; also because of the weight of debris fallen from above . The sagging floors twisted their joints to the perimeter columns (on the three intact faces); the length of column above a floor joint being twisted inward. For one face of the building, the combined stress of the original weight above it, the added compression from the hat truss, and the torque from the sagging floors were too much. Its perimeter beams were bent inward to the point of failure, and they buckled.
          The NIST investigation was an extremely detailed analysis by 200 engineers and building professionals, describing the conditions of the buildings from the instant an airplane collided to the moment a collapse began. The next section of this CounterPunch report carries the story downward from the point where NIST leaves off. NIST concentrated its resources on the greatest uncertainty: what initiated the collapse? It was understood that once an upper block of the building was in motion the structure below would be unable to counter the dynamic forces, and collapse would proceed to the ground.”
          link to counterpunch.org

        • irishmoses says:

          Here’s a link to good website on debunking the 9-11 conspiracy claims. I spent a lot of time on this issue on a previous thread and looked at the ‘evidence’ the conspiracy folks offer. When you look at counter-non-conspiracy evidence, the conspiracy stuff just doesn’t work.

          Those that want to believe there is a conspiracy glom on to each bit of ‘evidence’ supporting each of their claims while refusing to look at careful descriptions of why that particular bit of evidence or claim has been refuted. There is no way in hell you will change their minds. Their belief is as religious as those of the birthers or intelligent designers. That said, I have great respect for several of those on MW who ascribe to the conspiracy theories. Their analysis of IP issues is well thought out and balanced. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to 9-11 conspiracy theories, they’ve lost it. This has also happened to at least one well known IP commentator (I forget his name) whose IP commentary is now tainted by his propounding of 9-11 conspiracy nonsense.

          link to debunking911.com

        • irishmoses says:

          Here is a link to Alexander Cockburn’s article on “9-11 Conspiracies and the Decline of the Left”. It is a must read for anyone considering conspiracy theories. He shows how much valuable energy by very bright folks can be pissed away in conspiracy garbage which deprives real issues and causes of their support, energy and brain power.

          link to counterpunch.org

        • irishmoses says:

          Here is a link to NIST’s very comprehensive FAQ section on the 9-11 WTC investigation. Also a must read for anyone genuinely interested in getting a balanced view on whether there was a conspiracy or alternative explanation for the collaspse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC 7.

          link to nist.gov

        • Keith says:

          IRISH MOSES- “This has also happened to at least one well known IP commentator (I forget his name) whose IP commentary is now tainted by his propounding of 9-11 conspiracy nonsense.”

          You have hit upon the reason that all of this started. David Ray Griffin is the Truther version of Lyndon LaRouche. They represent a part of the doctrinal system in which embarrassing truths which are difficult to cover up are tainted by association which absurd assertions. The rather obvious fact of the matter is that the Bush administration knew or should have known about the 911 attacks, at least in general terms, and, at the least, bent over backwards to allow them to happen. At the least, the Bush administration was guilty of gross negligence, perhaps more. Yet, by concentrating on controlled demolition assertions, the basic issue of willful negligence was ignored, while considerable energy was expended arguing about technical issues which the general public did not comprehend, expounded by confused lay people whose “expertise” consisted of regurgitating bogus “facts” they gleaned from Truther websites, none of which they were competent to evaluate independently. Just in case the controlled demolition myth gained traction, the missile not an airplane scenario was introduced to insure ridicule.

        • Shingo says:

          The only place such a consensus exists is among the 911 Truther faithful on Mondoweiss

          Truth be told Keith,

          There are more scientists and engineers rejecting the NIST explanation than those supporting it(1,400 to 200).

          Once the plane hits, all control goes out the window. Also, any demolition charges in the area of the intense fire would pre-detonate.

          Sorry but that’s not true. Modern explosives are not like gun powder that ignites upon heat or impact.

          I must admit I share your skepticism over the question of pre – position the explosives and the logistics involved. It is the issue that makes the demolition theory most implausible to me.

          Of course, you can go to websites where PhDs will tell you what you want to hear. None of these, however, will demonstrate how a controlled demolition could be done.

          That’s true, but the question you are not addressing is that the official explanation is just as implausible.

          “The popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories (also outlined in a useful Wikipedia entry) has prompted NIST to present a very nice webpage addressing the usual questions of the conspiracy viewpoint

          They addressed some of them yes, but even in their official report, they refused to investigate the possibility of explosives in the buildings.

          Summary of NIST Findings

          Correction, that’s a summary of NISTS theories.

          None of these “findings” were supported by the results of their own experiments.

          For example:

          The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core.

          If the the columns only along one face of the building were sheared, the collapse of the buildings would have been asymmetrical. In other words, the buildings would have toppled over to one side, rather than collapse on it’s own footprint.

          The shocks of impact and detonation loosened the “fire protection” thermal insulation on steel beams in the impact zone.

          That would have meant only the exposed steel would have been affected by fires, and steel happens to be a very good conductor, hence the heat would have been rapidly dissipated.

          The hat truss pressed down much more forcefully on the perimeter columns, transferring the load of the hanging weight.

          This would have resulted in buckling, not collapse, and that buckling would have been very noticeable. Even NISTS own compute simulation showed this, but it wasn’t visible in the footage of the collapse.

          AS your won quotes states “because of the irregularity of the damage one face assumed a much higher load than the other two.”

          Whenever you have loads distributed unevenly, you get an uneven failure. That ‘s not what we witnessed.

          “It ignited the many plastic furnishing (carpets, curtains, furniture, equipment cases, clothing, fixtures, office ceilings and partitions), paper items (paper supplies, books, pressed wood), and some structural elements (gypsum wall boards, plastic plumbing), which then continued the fire. “

          But none of these burn anywhere near 1,100 degrees C . We know for example, that paper only burns at a few hundred degrees C.Building codes also required that office building interiors are build with fireproof ro fire resistance materials.

          Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent.

          There are a huge number of problems with this explanation.

          1. 10 minutes of exposure to 1,000 C fires would not have heated such a large area of steel to 1,000 C and whatver heat there was would have been dissipated by conduction to other parts of the building.

          2. Only the exposed area would have been been exposed to the fire. The NIST explanation assumes all the supports for the floors failed uniformly due to heat, which is impossible.

          3. Any engineer will tell you that structures are always designed with a minimum of 200-300% contingency. Hence a 50% loss of strength would be within design limits and a 70% loss would still have provided significant resistance to collapse to avoid complete failure without ample warning (ie. we would have witnessed).

          Even more damning of NISTS reporting is that NISTS claims contradict the results of their own experiments. They subjected a mock up of one of the floors to 1000 C for a number of hours (can’t remember precisely), and the amount of sag they measured was 4 inches, yet the report claims 40 inches.

          NIST concentrated its resources on the greatest uncertainty: what initiated the collapse?

          This is indeed probably the biggest weakness in the NIST report. Initiation is one thing, but what happened afterwards was completely ignored and I suspect, for a very good reason.

          To accept that the collapse could have taken place at near free fall speed would involve the suspension of one of the most fundamental principals of physics, the conversation of momentum and energy.Whatever momentum there was would have been met with resistance and slowed the collapse not proceeded hindered.

          Anyone who has played pool knows that a billiard ball hitting one or more other balls leads to the each becoming progressively slower. The video NIST produced of the simulation of the Building 7 Collapse loons nothing like the actual footage, and even so, NIST refuse to share the input parameters they used on the grounds of “national security”.

          As an engineer myself, this was the first thing that puzzled me, long before any conspiracy theories came out.

        • Shingo says:

          When you look at counter-non-conspiracy evidence, the conspiracy stuff just doesn’t work.

          The interesting this Irishmoses, is that the debunking911.com link brings up theories that NIST does not. For example, it argues that pull (as in Bldg 7) referred to cables that were attached to tthe building to brin it down. Not only is this absurd (the building fell vertically, not to one side) but NIST themselves never etertained thsi theory.

          So it seems that even the 9-11 conspiracy debunker can’t agree.

        • Shingo says:

          At the least, the Bush administration was guilty of gross negligence, perhaps more. Yet, by concentrating on controlled demolition assertions, the basic issue of willful negligence was ignored, while considerable energy was expended arguing about technical issues which the general public did not comprehend…

          The problem with your thesis Keith, is that it does not account for the possibility that Bush was not aware of the attack in advance, while others in Washington might have been.

          You see Keith, those who adhere to the official explanation of 911 display a certain degree of cognitive dissonance, given that the same people who gave us the official story also lied us into war in Iraq. Some of you might even admit that the official explanation has holes in it, yet you demand that the 911 truthers lack credibility because their own theories are not water tight.

          In other words, until an alternative explanation which is 100% perfect comes along, the official but flawed narrative should remain.

          What amazes me is that while you are so quick to dismiss the controlled demolition theory, you remain unphased by the fact that the only time steel buildings collapsed due to fire was 911 and that it happened 3 times.

        • Keith says:

          SHINGO- “There are more scientists and engineers rejecting the NIST explanation than those supporting it(1,400 to 200).”

          1400 + 200 = 1600. Only 1600 scientists and engineers in the US? I am surprised! I don’t know what the total number of scientists and engineers is, but 1400 hardly constitutes a majority. More like a very small minority, and that is without verifying their professional credentials. The 200 are those who specifically looked at the situation, performed experiments, etc.

          “Modern explosives are not like gun powder that ignites upon heat or impact.”

          Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the common explosives used in controlled demolitions along with their flash points. I have had personal experience with military bombs “cooking off” when exposed to a jet fuel fire.

          “That’s true, but the question you are not addressing is that the official explanation is just as implausible.”

          As implausible as what? No detail has been provided of a remotely plausible alternative. A controlled demolition is assumed, period. Show me the controlled demolition! How much explosive? What type? Where placed? How wired? How wiring remained intact after an airplane strike? Why collapse the second building first? Perhaps a few tests to demonstrate feasibility?

          “Anyone who has played pool knows that a billiard ball hitting one or more other balls leads to the each becoming progressively slower.”

          And all this time I thought that gravity would tend to cause a downward acceleration. Go figure. During the initial phase of the collapse, when the hard steel of the top section hit the hard steel of the bottom section, a shock wave was produced which went up and down the structure shearing rivets, etc. Once set in motion, the dynamic forces totally overwhelmed the remaining structure, hardly requiring explosives to facilitate the process. And why would anyone want to anyway? Actually, when the first plane struck the first building, the Bush administration had their New Pearl Harbor, why collapse them at all? Why building 7 if the goal was to make it look like just the airplanes did it?

          “What amazes me is that while you are so quick to dismiss the controlled demolition theory, you remain unphased by the fact that the only time steel buildings collapsed due to fire was 911 and that it happened 3 times.”

          What amazes me, Shingo, is that you seem oblivious to the obvious rejoinder. Assuming that your statement is correct about “only time steel buildings collapsed due to fire,” how many times have controlled demolitions been preceded by airplane strikes and raging fires?

          Dr Shingo, you make many claims about the flaws in the NIST report. Does this mean that you have personally gone over it in detail, or are most of your comments based upon Truther websites? If you and your fellow “scientists and engineers” have some hard data, why not work it up and submit it to a professional journal? Or are they all part of the cover up?

          Now, I am not a scientist or an engineer, and am not competent to comment on the technical issues. However, I like to think that I have enough common sense to realize that any sort of covert operation would need to be simple and involve few people. Hijacking 4 airliners and flying them into buildings is about as complicated as possible for a realistic chance of success. Lining 3 buildings with high explosives to achieve dubious benefits is wildly improbable, requiring a huge conspiracy. Hitting the Pentagon with a missile not an airplane is outlandish, yet the Truther movement has this as one of their claims. Incidentally, there is good reason that I mentioned Lyndon LaRouche. La Rouchies are all over the 911 Truth movement. So are Ron Paul libertarians.

        • irishmoses says:

          Shingo,
          Here are just couple of specific responses to your arguments:
          1. Free Fall speeds: link to debunking911.com

          2. WTC7. Here is a long explanation of what happened to WTC7 including the “pull” issue and the “fell vertically” argument. First, no one on the non-conspiracy side claims that the building was pulled down by cables. Second, as the photographs show, WTC7 did not collapse vertically but fell gradually in the direction of the massive damage to one of its sides caused by the falling columns from WTC1.
          link to debunking911.com

          3. First Time Steel Building ever collapsed due to fire claim:
          This gives examples of other steel buildings collapsing after fires. link to debunking911.com

          4. “There are more scientists and engineers rejecting the NIST explanation than those supporting it(1,400 to 200).”
          There are over 1.5 million licensed engineers in the US, 300,000 of whom are civil/structural engineers. 200 of those were picked to do the NIST analysis of the WTC disaster. They concluded the buildings collapsed because of airliner and debris impact plus fire. The 1400 you mention are from a wide variety of engineering and scientific fields most of which are unrelated to civil/structural engineering. A better survey would be of the 300,000 licensed civil/stuctural engineers.
          link to bls.gov

          Shingo, I could go on and on but I’m trying to work on an IP article so I am going to call a halt to my further participation on this issue.

          Anybody, including Pabelmont and Shingo, interesed in the WTC Truther issue should start with Andrew Cockburn’s Counterpunch article on “9-11 Conspiracies and the Decline of the Left”. It is a must read for anyone considering conspiracy theories. He shows how much valuable energy by very bright folks can be pissed away in conspiracy garbage which deprives real issues and causes of their support, energy and brain power.

          The link is at my Nov. 6, 2:31pm comment above. Please read that and the other links cited before jumping to conclusions that the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy theories are valid. Look carefully at links and evidence from both sides, including the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports. Finally, apply William of Ockham’s famous “Occam’s Razor” to your analysis.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Shingo says:

          1. Free Fall speeds: link to debunking911.com

          Fascinating. First of all, I should have said “near free fall” so that was my mistake. Secondly, whoever illustrated that graph doesn’t even get free fall speech correct. It is 9.81 m/s2 not 9.2, so their WTC1 and WTC2 estimates are clearly suspect.

          Second, as the photographs show, WTC7 did not collapse vertically but fell gradually in the direction of the massive damage to one of its sides caused by the falling columns from WTC1.

          1. First of all, you’re own source does indeed point to an image of cables.
          link to debunking911.com

          Not to mention the youtube clip entitled Pull means pull with cables.

          2. Based on the image provided, the damage to the side of the building from WTC1 was not massive but superficial. There it nothing shown in that image that suggests these was any significant structural damage to the building. In fact, NUIST argues that the building collapsed because locums in the center of the building failed.

          4. There are no photographs on your link showing photographs illustrating the building falling in any direction. Video shows that the building fell vertically.

          5. NISTS own simulation does not bear any resemblance to the footage of the collapse of Blg 7.

          This gives examples of other steel buildings collapsing after fires.

          What more can one say than the fact that the image provided bears no resemblance whatsoever to WTC1, 2 and 7. This image:

          link to debunking911.com

          Shows a building that has fallen completely to one side and remained largely intact. Al of the 911 buildings weer pulverized and the steel beams shettered in countlesspieces.

          There are over 1.5 million licensed engineers in the US, 300,000 of whom are civil/structural engineers. 200 of those were picked to do the NIST analysis of the WTC disaster.

          My point was that those engaged in this debate are 200 from NIST vs 1,400 who question their findings. Furthermore, civil/structural engineers alone do not represent the exclusive disciplines applicable to the investigation. Metallurgists, chemists, and physicists would need to be consulted to produce a comprehensive analysis.

          I have read Andrew Cockburn’s Counterpunch article, and while I have the highest respect for Cockburn and Counterpunch, I respectfully disagree with his conclusions.

          As for NIST, their own representatives have been exposed as either willfully ignorant or blatant liars. How a spokesman for NIST can claim they had not heard any reports of motel metal on the sight boggles the mind.

          Finally, apply William of Ockham’s famous “Occam’s Razor” to your analysis.

          That’s exactly what demolition expert Danny Jowenko did when he first witnessed footage of WTC7 without being told what he was looking at.

          link to youtube.com

          It’s interesting that you should mention Occam’s Razor Irish. Because the simplest explanation for what took place on 911 is the one
          that was first mentioned at the time by reports narrating the event. And what did Dan Rather say the collapses looked like?

        • Shingo says:

          Keith,

          My point about 1,400 vs 200 is that they represent the two parties actively engaged in the debate. You cold argue that all the other engineers, scientists and demolition experts in the US agree with NIST bu remain passive, but that’s not entirely convincing.

          Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the common explosives used in controlled demolitions along with their flash points.

          C4 is an example that comes to mind.

          Show me the controlled demolition! How much explosive? What type? Where placed? How wired?

          You’re clearly not being serious. As I admitted to you, the deal breaker in the controlled demotion argument are the logistics as to how it was pulled off.

          My point is that you are asking me to show you all of these details, when NIST, with all it;s resources and access to evidence, has failed to do so. Their experiments (the ones they bothered to carry out), did not support their own conclusions.

          And all this time I thought that gravity would tend to cause a downward acceleration. Go figure.

          Acceleration in the absence do any resistance. You see, even acceleration does not violate conservation of momentum and inertia.

          During the initial phase of the collapse, when the hard steel of the top section hit the hard steel of the bottom section, a shock wave was produced which went up and down the structure shearing rivets, etc.

          What are you talking about Keith? One of the characteristics of steel is that it retains a high degree of flexibility and malleability. Unlike concrete, it exhibits strength in both tension and compression, thus shcckwaves do not affect steel the way they affect concrete.

          The only thing that would have sheared the bolts (and the welds)
          would have been direct impact, and direct impact would have been met with resistance, friction, and inertia.

          Once set in motion, the dynamic forces totally overwhelmed the remaining structure, hardly requiring explosives to facilitate the process. And why would anyone want to anyway? Actually, when the first plane struck the first building, the Bush administration had their New Pearl Harbor, why collapse them at all? Why building 7 if the goal was to make it look like just the airplanes did it?

          Once set in motion, the dynamic forces totally overwhelmed the remaining structure, hardly requiring explosives to facilitate the process.

          Again, this violates the laws of physics.

          1. This does not explain what caused the floors above the impact points to collapse. The collapse , we are told, began at the impact point, but video shows that the floors above the impact points also began to collapse, where logic would dictate these floors would remain largely intact.

          2. As each floor collapsed, the momentum/energy of the collapsing debris would have been increasingly dissipated, and would have slowed down, not sped up.

          Actually, when the first plane struck the first building, the Bush administration had their New Pearl Harbor, why collapse them at all?

          If the attack had stopped there, it would have been no more severe than the Oklahoma bombing.

          I admit that I have based my comments on the flaw in the NIST report on the reports of those who have read it, but I don’t buy your argument that all 1,400 scientists and engineers are liars and participating in their own conspiracy to being down the government.

          For example. when the NIST report concludes there is no evidence of demolition and they are asked if they even investigated the possibility of demolition and they admit they didn’t, you have to ask yourself what kind of scientific integrity the NIST Report stands on.

          When a NIST representative claims he’s unaware of any evidence of molten mental at ground Zero, when the evidence is overwhelming, you have to ask yourself why such people are given such credibility.

          The missile hitting he Pentagon is largely dismissed among many in the truth movement, so there is no point you continually raising it. I agree it is a ridiculous assertion.

          And I also agree that the prepping of 3 buildings with high explosives would requiring a complex and conspiracy and it is the main reason for my own skepticism.

        • Keith says:

          SHINGO- This is going to be my last comment on this thread. I have had this type of discussion in the past. The Truther religion, like Creationism, is non-falsifiable in the eye of the true believer. Forever focusing on perceived anomalies in the “official” story, the ludicrousness of the proposed alternative is completely ignored.

          “You’re clearly not being serious. As I admitted to you, the deal breaker in the controlled demotion argument are the logistics as to how it was pulled off.”

          What’s that? No controlled demolition? But then again, no collapse caused by airplane strikes? Where does that leave us? The twin towers still standing? Good God, you aren’t going with the Judy Woods’ energy beam fantasy, I hope?

          “C4 is an example that comes to mind.”

          This in response to my question about the type of explosive commonly used in controlled demolitions and the flash point? Mighty skimpy reply. Am I to assume that C4 is a commonly used controlled demolition explosive? Am I too assume that the flash point is above 600 degrees centigrade (1112 degrees Fahrenheit), the temperature which you accept as that which is possible from burning jet fuel (but below the official estimate)? Military bombs can cook off, but not C4? But since you seem to be distancing yourself from the controlled demolition scenario, what’s the point of all of this?

          “What are you talking about Keith? One of the characteristics of steel is that it retains a high degree of flexibility and malleability. Unlike concrete, it exhibits strength in both tension and compression, thus shcckwaves do not affect steel the way they affect concrete. …The only thing that would have sheared the bolts (and the welds)
          would have been direct impact, and direct impact would have been met with resistance, friction, and inertia.”

          Thank you, Dr Shingo, for that expert opinion. You may be surprised that Dr Garcia, a physicist, doesn’t share your basic understanding of dynamic forces. He writes:

          “Elastic waves are launched from the collapse front (the leading edge of descending material, like “weather front”) at the moment of first impact. Within 0.01 s, a stress wave has traveled through the metal framework to five levels below the collapse front, a distance of 20 m. These lower levels experience a rapid –dare I say explosive? –increase in the stress within their frames. Bolts and rivets may be sheared, and joints ruptured by the resulting impulsive forces.

          For example, assume a carbon steel (HR 0.45C) bolt or rivet of 1 inch diameter is used to support a force of 8,000 kilograms, equivalent to a stress of 22,500 pounds-per-square-inch (psi). This stress is only one quarter of that material’s tensile strength of 90,000 psi; an apparently conservative design. However, an unexpected increase in load by a factor of five, to a total of 48,000 kg, or 135,000 psi, would probably rupture the joint.

          The stress wave from the initial impact races down the lower structure, arriving at ground level in 0.18 s (we continue with the numerical example). During that time, the collapse front has descended another 1.3 m. The stress wave is like a messenger telling the material it passes to “move down and compress” in response to the advancing collapse front. On reaching the ground, the wave could transmit some of its energy past the building’s foundation to radiate as a seismic wave through the earth, and another portion of its energy would reflect back up (the major effect, especially if the foundation is more rigid than the building it supports). The message of the upward running wave is “compress even more, dead-end down below.”

          Shingo, where does this leave me? Do I rely on your inferred expertise, or go with Manuel Garcia, Jr? And what is this nonsense about the Oklahoma bombing? Had that occurred on 9/11/01, and had it been done by alleged al Qaeda operatives, it could well have been a sufficient pretext for US military action. However, I believe that crashing planes into the twin towers was much more dramatic, recorded on video and endlessly replayed, and would likely provide the necessary pretext without collapsing the towers.

          Finally, you contradict yourself all of the time. The fire wasn’t hot enough to soften the steel, yet there was molten metal at ground zero. Are you suggesting thermite? You complain that I am asking for too many details, yet aren’t concerned that the Truther websites you frequent don’t provide a realistic alternative scenario after 8 full years, even though they have the resources to endlessly dissect and misrepresent the NIST study. You complain that the NIST report didn’t investigate endless alternative scenarios even as you yourself admit that a controlled demolition was illogical. You continue to criticize the NIST report which I doubt that you have read or are competent to evaluate based upon Truther websites which you accept as Gospel. That’s it. I’m off this thread.

        • Shingo says:

          You may be surprised that Dr Garcia, a physicist, doesn’t share your basic understanding of dynamic forces.

          4 things about Garcia’s analysis that stands out.

          1. He ignores the fact that the bolts were an addition to the welds in place
          2. He says “may” have sheared the bolts.
          3. He assumes the load (ie. the unexpected increase in load by a factor of five) was completely uniform, which is absurd to say the least.
          4. Most importantly of all, He conducted no experiences to prove his theory
          5. His discounts the fact that each joint and discontinuity (and there would be dozens if not hundreds over a span of 20 meters) would have dissipated the energy from such a shockwave.

          You see Keith, what you seem unable to comprehend is that the official thesis is based on a perfect set of conditions resignal what was an entirely random event, not only on every floor of each building, but every floor on 3 different buildings.

          Statically, at least one of the buildings would have produced a lop sided or incomplete collapse, but all 3 collapsed perfectly.

          The fire wasn’t hot enough to soften the steel, yet there was molten metal at ground zero. Are you suggesting thermite?

          Do you have a better explanation for how molten steel was not only created, but for why the steel in the ruins remained close to 2000degree C for weeks after the attack?

          No one has had the resources to endlessly dissect and misrepresent the NIST study. The study’s failures stand alone Their expressions do no support the official explanation and their simulations only serve to highlight the weaknesses in those theories.

        • @keith-
          i had a similar position as you have now, over a year ago. i do admit, you seem to have looked into it, and i respect that. when i looked into it i came to the opposite opinion. but i strongly disagree with your apparent certainty, and your incredulity that honest intelligent people can conclude it was *likely* or *almost undeniably* an inside job (with controlled demolition). some are dogmatic or religious about “9/11 truth”, some have seriously insane theories, but most do not. let’s not get into guilt by association or defame a diverse movement due to a minority.

          i think the biggest issue i have with your positioning is that you truly seem unable to accept the *possibility* of an inside job, with controlled demolition, and hence *elements* of the USG carrying out a *very* complex and devastating false flag (with some saudi/arab patsies, sincere terrorists or not, i do not know).

          if you cannot conceive of this as being possible (too complex, too many people required, just too crazy evil, etc. etc.), then you are destined to be biased, and will align with *theories* that largely or entirely explain the official gov line.

          if you are looking for evidence that fully and obviously outlines the complete manner in which 9/11 was carried out as a false-flag, you are setting an unreachable standard. such an operation would not be meant to be uncovered, and the cover story would be designed to be passable. you will always have theories that you find “plausible” to rest upon, and always conclude it was “not an inside job”.

          all i can say is that a great deal of evidence supports the *possibility* of an inside job.

          but i am most concerned with tangible, hard evidence, and that is most readily available from analysis of the collapse video, the pile, and the dust. i myself have a masters in engineering, and am familiar with materials engineering and the relevant characterization techniques. so please look into these questions, and let me know how you explain them. i find the sum of this evidence persuasive, especially when you also consider the mountain of other things (the indirect/circumstantial evidence, and the politics of it all).

          1) the collapse
          link to vimeo.com
          2) the dust
          (iron rich microspheres link to 911research.wtc7.net link to journalof911studies.com )
          (if this is not an elaborate hoax of a paper [and the journal is obviously pay to play], this is near proof that incendiaries were used, and specifically nanothermite was employed link to benthamscience.com )
          3) the high and persistent temperature of the pile and reports of molten steel; eutectic steel and the “meteorite” of melted steel
          link to 911research.wtc7.net
          4) all the secondary explosions that people reported, and were even captured on film; fairly inexplicable for a coded building, where the impact was high and the jet fuel burnt off very quickly
          link to youtube.com

          yes, you can offer me “debunking” explanations for these, i have seen them. i work in the sciences, and we generally come up with a theory and a possible explanation for most *anything* we see…. often we find out we were totally wrong, despite the utter confidence we had in our proposed theories to explain what we observed. i suggest you consider the body of evidence though, ensuring you remain open to an inside job being *possible*.

          if you still conclude it was very unlikely it was an inside job, and you conclude the evidence most fully supports the standard story, that is you conclusion. but even if you take that position, you might want to add some intellectual honesty and acknowledge that an inside job is still *possible* (however minute you view the possibility). i concede that it is possible that is was not an inside job. not much is 100% for a serious critical mind, and 9/11 is most clearly not a 100% event.

        • irishmoses says:

          Anonymouscomments (as well as Shingo and others),

          Per my earlier postings on this thread’s 9-11 subtopic, I come down squarely on Keith’s side of this issue. I looked over the links you provided and found nothing compelling. They seemed more like straw man arguments in which apparant anomolies are selected out, usually mischaracterized, without any context or analysis of the rebutting arguments. These are then put together to create what appears to be a compelling presentation but really is a house of cards that soon collapses under its own weight (pardon the inadvertant pun) when subjected to any half-rigorous attempt at rebuttal.

          Attempting to reengage on the details of this argument is clearly a futile exercise. Keith already did a good job on that and I won’t attempt to top his last posting. Instead, I suggest you take a step back and look at the big picture and the implications of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory compared to the simplicity of what what we saw before our eyes on 911: 2 huge airplanes crashing into 2 huge structures; massive fires, and a collapse of the buildings. This is soon followed by a very detailed investigation and analysis that describes the history of the highjackers, what they did and what motivated them, as well as a detailed analysis of the cause of the building collapses by NIST.

          As with any investigation of a huge, catastrophic event, there were some mistakes and some unanswered or unexplained anomolies. But, the conclusions seem reasonable and consistent with what we observed on 911.

          Contrast that with accepting your controlled demolition conspiracy explanation. For your “theory” to work and be a rational, reasonable, alternatiive explanation, a massive conspiracy on a scale unimaginable would have to have occurred. This conspiracy would need to include, at a very minimum, the following:

          1. A very large, well-trained demolition team that worked for weeks inside the 3 buildings, ripping out drywall to gain access to beams to set shaped explosive charges, cut and weaken beams, lay massive amounts of wiring, hide all the evidence of their nighttime work before the start of the next working day, somehow avoid the security personnel and cameras and janitorial crews that are present 24/7. Yet, no one who survived who worked as a janitor or security guard, or even an employee working in an office late into the night or in the early morning hours has stepped forward to mention their knowledge of all the nighttime predemolition work (and noise) going on. Lots of the thousands of people that worked in the buildings were sick, or on vacation on 911 but none of them saw or heard anything fishy in the weeks prior to 911. Maybe they were silenced? Maybe they thought the teams working inside the walls making all the noise and mess were just doing routine maintenance? Or, maybe all of them too are part of the conspiracy?

          2. The demolition team leaders must have known that on 911 these buildings would be hit by airliners and that they would need to set off their demolition charges some time after the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.

          3. The highjackers could not have been al Queda, but must have been co-conspirators from the US government (or Israel, or the Tri-lateral commission) who were willing to commit suicide and kill their fellow Americans in the planes and buildings. Perhaps the crews of the airliners themselves were part of this conspiracy? Or, maybe the highjackers were trained CIA or Mossad agents willing to kill themselves for the cause (whatever that is)?

          4. The NIST and 911 Commission investigations must have been rigged and their members part of the conspiracy. This would need to include not only the 200 structural engineers who performed the NIST investigation, but also all members and staff of the 911 Commission.

          5. All the government agencies that participated in the investigation must have been part of the conspiracy since they provided the false evidence and testimony about the highjackers being mainly Saudis employed by al Qaeda. This would need to include the FBI and CIA as well as the US military who must have hidden the fact that they were capable of shooting down the hijacked planes but deliberately did not.

          6. The President must have been involved as well as his cabinet.

          Now, assuming all the above were part of this grand conspiracy to crash airplanes into buildings and then destroy them with controlled demolitions, you would think that someone out of the thousands who must have been involved in this grand conspiracy would have leaked, talked. Yet, 10 years later, there has been not a peep to be heard from any of the conspirators, any of the janitors, any of the building security personnel.

          In your eloquent rebuttal of Keith’s last entry you chide him for not being balanced, not being willing to keep an open mind, to accept the possibility that there might have been controlled demolitions of the buildings and that there might have been a huge conspiracy behind it all. In other words, Keith, me, and other conspiracy sceptics are failing to balance two alternative, reasonable theories or explanations, the NIST/911 Commission’s or the Controlled Demolition theory, and failing to be intellectually honest in not admitting the possibility that it all could have been an “inside job” on the massive scale I described above.

          Nah, sorry. I refuse to attribute reasonableness or logic to what amounts to a truly mind-bogglingly preposterous, outlandish fantasy. If you and your fellow team of 911 Truthers wish to piss away your valuable intellects on nonsense like this I can only shake my head in sorrow at the waste of such promising talent that could and should be devoted to truly important causes, like the IP issue. I can only hope you will stop, reconsider and take a long hard look at the fantasy world you have created and decide “No, I really don’t belong among these folks and their wacky conspiracy theories.”

        • Citizen says:

          irishmoses, so what do you think of the way the 9/11 Commission redacted their summary conclusion as to motive of the hijackers–from specifically blowback from US rubber-stamping Israel to the generic–all foreign policy results in blowback? The original specificity is still retained in the torso of the report,but it’s never been hi-lighted by our intrepid press.

        • Citizen says:

          Re: “Am I to assume that C4 is a commonly used controlled demolition explosive?” Well, for what it’s worth, I was issued C4 as a peon in the US Combat Engineers a very long time ago.

        • irishmoses says:

          I caught that and actually wrote something about it. The head of the 911 commission was asked about the omission in an interview and said they left it out because too many commission members felt that highlighting it in the report would cost Israel US funding and support. Unbelievable.

          I think that is just another example of the influence the lobby has on US politics and agencies. I don’t think that omission has anything to do with claims of a controlled demolition conspiracy related to 911.

        • what utter condescension. i do think advocating the 9/11 conspiracy *theory* is fairly futile and a waste of time, given the receptiveness of the general public. i focus on our policies, as that is the insane thing, and the whole point of the false-flag, assuming it was one. trillion dollar wars, pre-planned illegal wars that needed a *serious* casus belli, and a manufactured clash of civilizations though, do seem to be a direct result of this incident, and impossible without it… either assholes got reallllllllly lucky when they were in the right place, or perhaps they had an active hand in it?

          regarding openness, i consider it * slightly possible* the official story is largely legit, and the truthers are wrong. but i am surprised people like you consider an inside job a “truly mind-bogglingly preposterous, outlandish fantasy”. in the end i think you are overstating what needs to be involved at times, and also are not open to the possibility that those (quite significant) requirements can be met. further, i think you ignore that for each point, there is direct and/or circumstantial evidence which SUPPORTS the possibility that the given requirement may have been met; you just seem to side with the debunker opinion/conclusion/line.

          the highest levels need some active participants, and people who can be coerced. i would say cheney was active, though i am sure people held cards over him, and bush was likely more of a puppet- not in the loop but knew who to take orders from and they likely had some dirt on him. the compartmentalized need to know players down the chain represent a significant number of people, but it is not insane to think that it can be done. but i admit, the idea of it all *sounds* insane… too big to be done. delve into actual conspiracies which have either been uncovered or largely come to light, and you might re-calibrate what you think is possible with the strings of power.

          history?
          US
          link to en.wikipedia.org
          link to en.wikipedia.org
          (proposed, but shows you how some people think and what they will propose to the WH) link to en.wikipedia.org
          the actual proposal- link to gwu.edu
          forget things like babies from incubators for gulf war one, the possible sacrifice of the lusitania for WWI, the number of gov people who had to come together to LIE our way into iraq, etc. etc.

          Israel
          …well, you know… lavon affair, USS liberty (likely had a green light from key people in the US military/administration), etc. etc.

          yes 9/11 would have been the most bold false-flag; an amazing execution involving more people than i thought possible. but when i try to lay out how it would be done, then check the angles, the evidence supports that each important point is *possible*, or evidence strongly supports the “inside job” hypothesis.

          but what gets me the most is the WTC7 collapse (but also WTC1/2 and the dust), and the engineering side of it all. if you think WTC7 would free-fall, completely, into its footprint, due to fires and asymmetrical damage on one side affecting a few exterior columns, you are the one taking sloppy “theories” and accepting them. and that is just one of the large engineering holes in the gov story.

          but OK, i am done. you think it is implausible. i thought that. i came to consider it possible. then i reviewed the evidence, and it looks very likely to me now. call me crazy. but i do agree….. the focus should be US foreign policy, I/P, and politics in general.

          but here are some other crazy people for you… who believe in or give credence to a “truly mind-bogglingly preposterous, outlandish fantasy”
          link to patriotsquestion911.com

          do appreciate the time for the discussion though. i believe the major point of contention we REALLY have is whether or not it could have been pulled off…. basically can enough people exist of this mindset (either of their own accord, or coercion, or as unwitting players), play their roles, and keep it quiet (willingly for most, but under threat for some). you think it basically impossible so you will lean towards your conclusion. i happen to think it is possible, and hence looking at the evidence i reach my conclusion.

    • Do you think the military decides which wars we fight? It’s the nutty politicians, lobbies, and the media that usually drive us to a given war. The military voices their concerns to the WH, but then they take orders when push comes to shove. Colonels in my family clearly oppose an Iran strike and hope “cooler heads prevail”….. But if nutters have the *ability* and will to push Obama into making a war, then he likely will be pushed. Possible threats to carriers are an afterthought for the pro war forces, and could even be an argument for a massive shock and awe 2. If Israel starts, we follow. I assume they will get us to do it though, but I don’t know how… (false flag? seems to be *required* unless Israel/bibi is crazy enough to start the war off itself; just think the world will moan in utter disbelief that it’s a transparent BS 9/11 repeat… 9/11 and any future false flag attack would be *inside jobs* from elements in the US, I am not accusing Israel of such although Israel-firsters are likely to be a major driving force; neocon ideologues, both Jewish and Gentile). The question is if this white house is firm against an Iran strike, in which case I think the pro war people will try to get a republican in office who gets with the bloody program. But I do hope the whole idea is so insane that key people realize it’s horrible for both Israel and the US, and the powers that be recalibrate their means and expectations.

      What would Israel do without a bogeyman though? They can only “excuse” expansion while keeping Israelis in line with inflated “existential” fears…. no Iran “threat” means some Israeli peace movement might reemerge in opposition to the racist right wing slide we witness today. Israel loves a good enemy that is not really a threat but they can cast as Hitler. The Shoah built Israel, and the vision of a second Shoah therefore is always kept alive. Oddly Israel itself is the only place a second Shoah could reasonably occur, and it is driving most antisemitism currently. The whole Zionist argument gets turned on it’s head, and Israel seems like the dumbest thing you could do to ensure Jewish survival… Violently colonize the land of a major religion, and gather all the Jews in that tiny plot of land. Absurd. Of course that isn’t really happening, and the number of American Jews mirrors the Jewish Israeli population. And Israelis are always looking for that second passport- their insurance policy, should they need to/decide to jump ship for a variety of reasons (including fascism, economics, or utter domestic insanity- levels of these already feeding into Israeli emigration).

      • annie says:

        Violently colonize the land of a major religion

        ‘a’ major religion?

        • seafoid says:

          Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are the Majors. so I think that is okay, Annie

        • Considering I lived in Beit Sahour, majority Christian, that was just worded awkwardly and not from my ignorance. It was clearly a land populated by adherants to the *three* abrahamic faiths (only two of them large… in numbers….), but I meant to point out that it was a land that was >90% Muslim…. Meaning that Zionist crimes would obviously be an insult to many Muslims, now over a billion strong, and that includes Israel’s entire neighborhood. It was obviously a recipe for perpetual conflict, as we witness daily.

          I really meant something like- “violently colonize land overwhelmingly populated by adherents to a major religion with the intent to displace them”

        • annie says:

          yours was a really good comment anon and i should have mentioned that. i was just still fuming about something i written on another thread.

          thanks for your response.

        • Charon says:

          Speaking of the three Abrahamic faiths, Prior to Zionism apparently there was no distinction between Christianity and Islam (and maybe Judaism, I can’t confirm that) in Palestine. They worshipped at the same places and practiced the same customs. It only differed on a family level behind closed doors from what I understand. There were restrictions in the Old City of Jerusalem, but otherwise it sounds like they were anonymously secular.

          The so-called ‘old Yishuv’ Palestinian Jewish people (Levantine/Arab) opposed of the Zionists colonists. There was a pretty good book about this period, its name and author evade me at the moment. Essentially, the Arabs of Palestine may not have been stung by the nationalism bug, but they were all one people irrespective of religion. The Zionists changed this. Even in the partition plan, the Zionists included the Palestinian Jews when considering the number of Jewish populations which wasn’t accurate. Arafat later considered them to be Palestinians. Religion is merely a straw man in this so-called ‘conflict’… although now assimilation has occurred.

        • pabelmont says:

          Anon: My late wife was raised in Ramallah, a Christian town at the time (1932-1944), and what I got from her fond memories of life as a child in Palestine included very easy and friendly relations between Christians and Muslims. At the Friends Girls School, where she was a student, there was even one Jewish student. There seemed to be — in those halcyon days — no religious difficulties, even though the (few) early bullets arising from Jewish aspirations at domination of Palestine were already flying. In the years 1980-1990, when I become acquainted with the I/P problem, Palestinian visitors to Greater Boston, where we lived, told stories of the friendships and co-operation between Christians (which most of our visitors were), Muslims, and Jews from earlier days.

          Those earlier days (before 1930?) were days when, of course, people did not see themselves as citizens of Jewish, Christian, or Muslim “nationality” but just as people. In those days one could have imagined a single multi-ethnic non-confessional state. A bit harder to imagine that now, after all that has happened, and after the fires of Israeli Jewish nationality have burned so fiercely in the hearts of the Jewish Israelis and so harmfully in the flesh of all the others.

      • Citizen says:

        I think your comment about covers the current situation, anonymouscomments. Obama, may or may not decide to green light Israel’s bombing of Iran, depending on whether or not he gets convinced by the likes of Dennis Ross that he needs to do something to counter GOP win-this suggests he will be more amenable if jobless stats do not improve significantly as election day approaches; I think the GOP in congress & Democratic Israel Firsters will gladly OK it too; certainly the House Foreign Affairs Committee, core Zionist fiefdom in Congress, will OK it too. All GOP contenders except Ron Paul, & maybe–depending on if he’s the GOP contender & jobless stats diminish significantly as we approach next vote for POTUS, in which case he’d green light Israeli attack same as Obama would.

        Obama gave Israel a bunch of bunker busters, is now transferring military supplies & personnel from Iraq to little Arab statelets, preparing for possible bombing Iran, seems to me–would be the ultimate stimulus package & I’m sure Democrats can come up with their own version of Wolfowitze to claim we can do it on the cheap and get giant benefits. What does the brass in your family think about that sort of thinking? Are they Ron Paul supporters? Are you? Why, why not?

        • well, there are two colonels (female in army, male recently left air force now working for a drone manufacturer…). i only have picked his opinions. he is a level headed secular realist, but in the system. basically, he (likely in retrospect) realized the iraq war was a disaster. regarding iran, he “hopes cooler heads will prevail”, knows iran would be a disaster, but is likely not 100% confident war will be averted. i *believe* he voted for bush 1st term, perhaps the 2nd time (inexplicable), then voted obama with confidence (burned by bush of course).

          i like ron paul on foreign policy of course. but i am a progressive with a larger role for the gov domestically. basically i would prefer kucinich, or some ron paul/kucinich blend. due to the nature of our system rigged for 2 parties only now, i might have to vote obama, even though i hate him. my reasoning would be that perhaps obama can hold off the iran disaster, while the republican choice is likely already gunning for the iran war. if obama does iran, i vote ron paul (or some 3rd party guy) and sincerely consider leaving the US cause i couldn’t stomach paying taxes to such an insane country.

          but i would easily pick ron paul over any of the “electable” options, just may not vote for him, due to the mentioned reasoning. Rs and Ds are admittedly the same, and bow to the same interests mostly, but sometimes the difference can actually be large on FP/wars…. i am not sure how we fix this system and get the ability to vote who we really want; without fear of getting the greater of two evils. instant run-offs or proportional representation in congress would allow a surge in 3rd/4th parties, but the establishment would never change the system as they love passing the baton.

        • Citizen says:

          I would go with a Ron-Paul-Dennis Kucinich ticket too. It won’t happen certainly without deep campaign finance system change. Perhaps federally funded campaigns by an objective and transparent agency itself peopled via national referendum? At least, direct popular election of senators and fix the gerrymandering?

  7. Keith says:

    There is, of course, an alternative explanation for Israel’s heated rhetoric. Tied in with the story of the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador, this creates immense pressure to do something. And while a military attack on Iran cannot be ruled out (even though Uri Avnery rules it out), it may be a ploy to get the rest of the world to go along with actions short of war. That is, for the global financial elites to agree to sanction Iran’s central bank. Over at CounterPunch, Sasan Fayazmanesh makes the case.

    “In sum, the bizarre story of the used-car salesman, Mexican drug cartel, and the Saudi Ambassador is inextricably linked to the US-Israeli desire to sanction Bank Markazi. It is expected that this “sanction of mass destruction,” or “nuclear option,” will do the trick and will help to paralyze the Iranian economy. Down the line, it is hoped, the shattered economy will create the right conditions for the overthrow of the “Iranian regime” and its replacement by a US-Israeli friendly government.”
    link to counterpunch.org

    • Keith says:

      Let me add that Uncle Sam would dearly love to gain control over Iranian oil, and if Israel’s belligerency can assist in this, it would surely be an example of a strategic asset. I think many Mondoweisser’s are defining strategic asset much too narrowly. The relationship between Israel and the US is complex and perverse, and extends to many areas outside the Middle East, not the least of which is the Zionist containment of what once was a Jewish Marxist tradition.

    • American says:

      “That is, for the global financial elites to agree to sanction Iran’s central bank.”

      Announced in the news today……US Backs Off Bank of Iran Sanctions

      Obama refused to sanction the Bank of Iran….lots of reasons…determintal to the US financial complexs itself and our economy ….and another large one is many other countries won’t go along with it. India is already having problems because of using the dollar to pay Iran for it’s oil because of other US sanctions. They are having to look for other banks to pay them thru and of course if they can’t pay Iran they won’t get any oil and they depend mostly on Iran for oil.
      The Israelis in our congress, Kirk, Schumer, the ususal AIPAC crowd and the Zio Defense of Democracy who were pushing for the Bank of Iran sanction are spittling mad and yelling now that we just have to ahead and attack them.
      It’s not even amazing any more that this Israeli fifth column in our country is willing to destroy America and the entire global economy for the tribe…..it’s plain and unquestionable. What was it Eric Alterman said?…that’s if it’s choice between Israel and America, Americans just have to bend over and take it. He should have included the whole world has to bend over and take it.

  8. The politicians completely do not take the voice of the general population into consideration. Like mafia members, they value only the voices of their Big Bosses. They’ve become so detached from the reality that there is like an invisible wall between us and them. They are living in a “different world”. and lives of average people, citizens have zero value for them.
    They should be removed from their positions and put to courts for a treason.

  9. pabelmont says:

    What gives, if several Israeli ex-Mossad leaders are making extraordinary warnings against Israel-v-Iran, but USA’s CIA is preparing for it (or for Israel&USA-v-Iran).

    Maybe the wannabe-warrior class in the USA (here, CIA and Perry) just loves war so much and WHO CARES about the price of gasoline? Some people still think the USA is an unbeatable superpower. Other people think you jist gotta attack bad guys no matter what. Let us all observe a moment of silence, now, for those brave CIA dead at Bay of Pigs (assuming any CIA at all joined the Florida-Cuban attackers), another wonderful CIA idea pushed onto an inexperienced president. (But, by now, Obama is at least experienced.)

    However, what are USA military saying?

    • Was it Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize in advance??
      Fot his future efforts of making sure that there is peace, and only peace in the world??

      • James says:

        that was a mistake giving him a peace prize.. i think the world breathed a temporary sigh of relief seeing the ass end of cheney/bush out the door… there is no other rationale i can find for him getting the peace prize then that, or his eloquent speeches that are a lot of eloquence with no substance…

        • Kathleen says:

          that was a mistake…he did not deserve that honor..we are still waiting for the reason why

        • Sumud says:

          I think there should be a movement developed by people of the world to strip Obama of his Nobel Peace Prize.

          The US just launched drone strikes on another African country, Uganda this time. I can literally not keep up with the number of countries the US is now actively warring against, I think it’s 7 now, and that’s not including the nearly 100 countries where US ‘special ops’ are operating.

      • Charon says:

        Shows how meaningless a ‘prize’ it really is. They gave Shimon Peres one too. Heck, they gave MENACHEM BEGIN the nobel peace prize. They gave it to a TERRORIST who is on record saying hateful and vile thing about not just the Palestinians, but all of us goy too.

    • Antidote says:

      “what are USA military saying?”

      Loose lips sink ships?

      • American says:

        “Loose lips sink ships”

        That’s a good question.
        I’m trying to figure out why the adm let/had a Senior Military official say that to CNN.
        Somebody is trying to tell somebody(s) something.

  10. lobewyper says:

    “Herman Cain thinks Israel is attacking China.”

    Jesus, Phil, give the poor guy a break! There’s a whole lot of countries to have to think about and keep striaght–it had to be just a brief lapse of memory… :)

  11. This is just BTW info. Veru disturbing though.
    “El Hierro volcano eruption report”. Someting is brewing near the Canary Island, and it ain’t looking good. Just FYI.
    Ok, one great news after another.
    link to earthquake-report.com

    • MRW says:

      Which of the Canary Islands is the one whose earthquake will hurl a 3,00 to 4,00 ft tsunami to NYC? I don’t think it is El Hierro.

        • MRW says:

          Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

          Btw, I just noticed I wrote 3,00 to 4,00 ft. It should be 3,000 to 4,000 ft tsunami. Somewhere between 1/2 to one mile high, say the experts. It would go inland as far as western Pennsylvania. Eliminate Manhattan, DC, the whole Eastern seaboard. Eight hours to get out of there. They said it would be traveling at 500 mph.

        • MRW says:

          This site is keeping up to date on what is happening:
          link to thewatchers.adorraeli.com

        • MRW says:

          dumvitaestspesest,

          Just to dial this down, the dangerous one is the Cumbre Viejo Volcano on La Palma in the Canary Islands. It’s not El Hierro.

          About the Cumbre Viejo from Wikipedia:

          Day et al. (1999)[6] and Ward and Day (2001)[7] hypothesise that during an eruption at some unascertained future time, the western half of the Cumbre Vieja—approximately 500 km3 (5 x 1011 m3) with an estimated mass of 1.5 x 1015 kg—will catastrophically fail in a massive gravitational landslide and enter the Atlantic Ocean, generating a so called ‘mega-tsunami’. The debris will continue to travel along the ocean floor as a debris flow. Computer modelling indicates that the resulting initial wave may attain a local amplitude (height) in excess of 600 metres (1,969 ft) and an initial peak to peak height that approximates to 2 kilometres (1 mi), and travel at about 1,000 kilometres per hour (621 mph) (approximately the speed of a jet aircraft), inundating the African coast in about 1 hour, the southern coast of England in about 3.5 hours, and the eastern seaboard of North America in about 6 hours, by which time the initial wave will have subsided into a succession of smaller ones each about 30 metres (98 ft) to 60 metres (197 ft) high.

  12. Kathleen says:

    That exchange between AP’s Matt Lee and Victoria Nuland at the daily press conference about the UNESCO vote and who the Obama administration is answering to and whether US National interest are being jeopardized because of Israel’s alleged interest was one of the best go rounds that I have heard in awhile. Lee would not let up

    I thought this was one of the more telling exchanges

    Matt Lee : In terms of lobbying people on the Hill to change this so that you’re not locked in to doing something that you believe is antithetical to U.S. interests –
    MS. NULAND: I’m not going to –
    Matt Lee: — because of the actions of third parties.
    MS. NULAND: I’m – the Israelis are well aware of the legislation on U.S. books.
    Matt Lee: No, no. Okay, fine. But are you telling the Israelis that it will actually hurt them and their arguments in these international fora if you’re forced out of them?
    MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into the private back and forth that we have with the Government of Israel.
    Matt Lee: Does the Administration find it unpalatable that it has to go to another government, to other government officials, to lobby members of its own legislature?
    MS. NULAND: I reject the premise of your statement.
    link to state.gov

    • Chaos4700 says:

      I reject the premise of your statement.

      Too bad Congress doesn’t.

    • Matt Lee is a great guy, and a wonderful , no nonsense journalist.
      Brawo for him. He is an example of an A+ reporter.
      “When you are afriad to proclaim the Truth, they’ve already made you into a slave”.

    • American says:

      God! that is good…Matt Lee for Prez of USA

      “Matt Lee: Does the Administration find it unpalatable that it has to go to another government, to other government officials, to lobby members of its own legislature?”

      • Kathleen says:

        Justin Raimando has one up that lines up with the Iran focus. As well as blending in with what Matt lee had to say to Victoria Nuland

        Israel’s Big Bluff

        How we’ll go to war with Iran
        link to original.antiwar.com

        “Such logic, however, is alien to the Washington mindset, which cannot frame the question objectively and has lost all sight of American interests when it comes to the Middle East. This is the result of the distortion of the policymaking process, which has fallen under the undue influence of foreign lobbyists who serve Israel’s interests above all. This is why the issue of Israel’s nuclear arsenal – the single most destabilizing factor in the Middle East – never comes up in our discourse.

        The Israel lobby is hell-bent on war, and is likely to get it: but they have to be careful. To launch such a project in the midst of a presidential election season is a risky business. They must do everything in their power to prevent the election from becoming a referendum on the war question, and the simplest way to do that is to make sure both major candidates are securely in the War Party’s camp. That’s the only way they can win: by rigging the outcome.”

        • Charon says:

          Good article. Odds are in favor of the lobby getting their war. Even if it doesn’t become the catalyst for a nuclear WWIII, Americans will be effected. As always, the price of petrol will go through the roof but even worse Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz. That means none of us will be able to afford gas because that’s 90% of the oil supply in the ME cut off. That is an expected outcome of any strike on Iran. Iran will also try and counter by attacking US ME military targets, killing Americans. They have also threatened to shoot missiles at Saudi oil fields. None of this is WWIII (yet) but the effects will be felt by all of us. Those war mongers won’t be able to hide from the backlash either. Bring out the guillotine

        • pabelmont says:

          Timing may be important. If the Israelis attack Iran too soon before the election (after the money has been collected), Obama could — in principle — refuse to join and hang Israel out to dry, explaining to the American people how the war is stupid, is against the American interest, and how he’d told Israel not to do it, how they tried to twist his arm, and why he refused to be twisted.

          If, however, they attack while he is still collecting money (and the Congress is still collecting money), then the money-blackmail that is officially called “democracy”, he might have to join-in, despite all costs to America, or kiss the election good-bye. HOWEVER, if the costs to America become manifest early after the attack and are clearly too high, he could still appeal to American patriotism to avoid a war that we have no interest in fighting and much reason to stay out of. Israel would then paint itself into a corner.

          (Glad I am not a political strategist!)

  13. If you want any proof that fundamentalist lunatics run Israel/US then look no further. Even Mossad is briefing against these warmongering little hitlers. Yeah, how many more trillions of dollars do the armchair generals want the US people to commit to another utterly useless, destructive war which will not make anybody safer, as the last wars have also failed to do. If there is a good argument for Iran getting nuclear weapons as a deterrent then here it is. But maybe that’s what those cowardly bullies in Israel are worried about. The threat isn’t to Israeli citizens, it is to their toytown generals who want regional dominance with their nuclear toys. What a bunch of strangelove retards they are.

  14. Kathleen says:

    Jon Stewart plays all nicey nice with war criminals when they are on his program. Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol. I have heard Jon Stewart be harder on Chris Matthews when he was on the the Daily show. What is up with Jon Stewart. Why no tough questions?
    Inspectors were in Iraq just before the US invaded. The Bush administration asked inspectors to leave

    Condi Rice says that after weapons inspectors left in 98 they never went back into Iraq. This is a lie. Inspectors were asked to leave before the US invaded. She is such a liar. Jon Stewart never challenges her. He responds “sure, yeah, uh huh, right” Never ever challenges her. “right” Yes” are Stewart’s responses.

    Jon Stewart is such a wienie. He did not challenge one time.

    This is a despicable interview. Stewart was not prepared. El Baradei came out in early march/2003 and said the Niger Documents were forgeries.

    link to thedailyshow.com

    Lets her get away with so many falsehoods. What a sell out Stewart is

  15. Kathleen says:

    this interview with Rice is disgusting. Stewart rolled over
    In this horrific interview with Condi “mushroom cloud”Rice Jon Stewart allows her to roll all over him. “right, um hum, yes, yeah, right” How many times can he keep agreeing with her? She says that inspectors never went back into Iraq after 1998. She lied again. Stewart let her get away with this.

    link to gwu.edu
    “As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime – to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – or face “serious consequences.” Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims. (Note 2)”

    Condi Rice “I would not call this preemptive” Stewart allows her to get away with this hogwash.

    —————————————-

    He does not ask her about taking out inspectors, Niger Documents, El baradei coming out and saying that the Niger Documents were false.

    Then Stewart give her every opportunity to “harp” on Iran because Stewart opens the door wide. She spins that there would be a arms race between Iraq and Iran.

    Hope the Leveretts dissect this interview with Rice. Stewart was not prepared, did not really challenge her in a substantive way at all. Stewart “right, umhum, yea, right, sure, right, yes” Stewart rolled over and gave a war criminal another opportunity to spin the lies and sell another book.

    disgusting

    • He really was in poor form, I was thinking the same things…. It’s like STEWART YOU ARE IGNORING HUGE GOTCHA FACTS! I see his need to play fairly nice to get the criminals to stop by, but he was too soft. Inexplicably silent on obvious things. And to many people unaware of history and reality, Condi actually came off “persuasive” on many points.

      • seafoid says:

        “Inexplicably silent on obvious things”

        Come off it. Stewart is a careerist

        link to youtube.com

        Careerism, opportunism have turned out politics into cartoonism

      • Kathleen says:

        “Condi actually came off “persuasive” on many points.” Yeah especially when he did not seriously challenge her with any facts. The Bush administration pulled inspectors in Iraq out for heavens sake. He actually allowed her to get away with saying that there had been no inspectors in Iraq since 1998.

        He let her get away with murder about her part in murders

  16. Somebody buy Matt Lee a Beer.

    Matt Lee: Does the Administration find it unpalatable that it has to go to another government, to other government officials, to lobby members of its own legislature?
    MS. NULAND: I reject the premise of your statement.

  17. Remax says:

    Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer and the fourth largest crude oil exporter, exporting 2,400,000 barrels of crude oil a day, 56 percent to Asia and 29 percent to Europe. Japan and the China together buy over one third of Iran’s oil exports (China 400,000 barrels per day). The US and Israel buy no Iranian oil. Israel might not be too popular if she decided to interfere with all this, nor from another angle would the Egyptian populace be likely to sit idly by if Israel attacked Iran. Russia and China may yet indicate to the US and Israel that this is a ‘No, No’ just as they recently combined to veto the US supported UN resolution on Syria, which the Russian envoy categorised, somewhat disdainfully, as arising from ‘a philosophy of confrontation’.

    • Charon says:

      Iran can cut off the Strait of Hormuz which will block 90% of the gulf oil. In addition to the usual war price jack, we will all be paying for that. Whether it’s the nations who buy Iranian oil or the ones (like us) who rely on gulf oil. Gasoline will be unaffordable even for the rich. Mass transit sucks in the US. The middle class won’t be able to afford to drive to work and the employers can’t won’t be able to pay them. This is just the best case scenario of a strike on Iran. Any American who supports a strike on Iran’s nuclear site is an enemy of this country.

  18. Kathleen says:

    Here is the link to Jon Stewarts interview with Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice.

    you have to listen to this. Stewart plays nicey nice with Rice
    link to thedailyshow.com

    She says that weapons inspectors were not in Iraq since 1998. That is a lie. A flat out lie. The Bush administration pulled the inspectors that had gone in there in 2002 out of Iraq before they invaded. Christ all mighty one would think that Jon Stewart would know such a small important fact. He does not bring up the Niger documents, questions within the CIA, El Baradei stating that the Niger documents were false. One of the weakest interviews I have ever seen Stewart do. Pathetic allowing war criminals on your program, not asking them tough questions and then allowing them to sell their spin on your program. Stewart should be ashamed of himself. At the very least he could have asked her some relevant and tough questions

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Meh, John Stewart is an entertainer. He belongs to Hollywood, not any sort of actual news room.

      • annie says:

        not any sort of actual news room.

        iow there’s a possibilty he didn’t actually know the facts well enough for a deccent rebuttal.

      • Kathleen says:

        Bull.. Jon Stewart uses this excuse all of the time. Yet he continually makes political commentary. When you invite Rice on your program you had better have the balls to ask relevant, challenging questions. Stewart proved once again he is a total wienie except when it comes to challenging Chris Matthews for what I am not sure.

  19. Kathleen says:

    worthwhile read over at Emptywheel’s (one of the sharpest bloggers around)

    link to emptywheel.net
    Predictions of Israeli Attack on Iran Hit Traditional Media–How We Got There
    Posted on November 3, 2011 by Jim White
    “n late November of 2007, the world–and especially the progressive blogosphere–was shocked when the George W. Bush administration released a National Intelligence Estimate that came to the firm conclusion that Iran had suspended work on its nuclear weapon program back in 2003. This was the same Bush intelligence community that had produced the fraudulent NIE in 2002 that came to the false conclusion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and intended to restart development of nuclear weapons. The progressive blogosphere had made a regular habit of predicting new dates for when Israel, or even the US, would attack Iran under the guise of stopping its development of nuclear weapons. The rate of new predictions for attacks slowed considerably in the face of the 2007 NIE.

    In September of 2009, speculation on plans to attack Iran got a new impetus, as the US announced the discovery of a previously secret uranium enrichment facility being built by Iran deep inside a mountain near Qum. Rhetoric from the US heated up considerably in response to this discovery”

  20. piotr says:

    One problem with fighting Iran is that due to the combined genius of then PM Olmert and then President Bush we had a rehearsal, namely the last war in Lebanon. Which made sense only through that lens. In the “real thing” Iran could try to block the Strait of Hormuz, and unblock it only after sufficiently humiliating concessions. Using missiles. We could use air force to destroy all sites launching missiles. Hezbollah was using total crap, and Israel actually provoked that by bombing civilian targets, while USA was egging Israel on.

    As a proof of concept, it worked, but unfortunately, in reverse. It is hard to destroy all bunkers that you do not even know. And if Hezbollah had a myriad of bunkers, you can bet your last cow that Iran has many more where it needs them. So here comes plan b): send in the Marines to do short work from primitively armed opponents. That did not work too well either. And of course plan c), just bomb everything and wait until they cry “uncle” did not work either.

    And ominously, Hezbollah launch a single anti-ship missile, so IDF had one operational ship less. Iran may be in possession of the spiffy Russian missiles that blow up everything with no remotely possible countermeasures, or not (those babies allegedly skim the sea and in the vicinity of the target zig-zag at supersonic speed; using anti-missiles against them is like using fly-swatter against bullets). What Iran surely possesses suffices to stop traffic of inflamable cargo (and nothing is as vulnerable like warships which are full of explosives and people, and kind of small, supertankers are actually hard to kill).

    Extrapolating how much more and better assets USA would have in Persian Gulf and how much more and better assets Persians would have does not make it look any better.

    Then there is Afghanistan. Does Iran have influence there? Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle? The clincher is that Iran has most influence where NATO is safest — for now.

    Then there are supply routes to Afghanistan. Which are precarious, and in shit-storm conditions the may be closed. Afghanistan may look like Dien Bien Phu, writ large.

    In the same time, what are “we” supposed to destroy in Iran? Consider the latest dreadful news: “AP: U.N. atomic agency to reveal intelligence suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead, say diplomats.” Can we bomb COMPUTER MODELS out of existence? I understand that we have bunker busters, but can we annihilate computer animations?

  21. Pixel says:

    Friday, November 4th, 2011
    American Veterans Publication Accused of Israeli Attack Leak

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/04/american-veterans-publication-accused-of-israeli-attack-leak/

    Thursday, November 3rd, 2011
    Kuwait’s al Jarida quotes Israeli sources claiming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Shin Bet chief to investigate source of leak on alleged plan to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Paper says Meir Dagan, Yuval Diskin allegedly behind leak

    Haaretz

    • piotr says:

      If true, it would be quite hilarious. It takes a skill of an ultra-spook to do the following with such utter secrecy that it would take Shin Bet to uncover:

      [NYT, July] He [Meir Dagan] made headlines a few weeks ago when he asserted at a Hebrew University conference that a military attack on Iran would be “a stupid idea.”

      This week Mr. Dagan, speaking at Tel Aviv University, said that attacking Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” He added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”

    • Charon says:

      I stopped reading Veteran’s Today when Jim Fetzer became a regular columnist. Also when Gordon Duff turned into a kook. Used to be some good stuff there, looks like they got bought and hijacked.

    • pabelmont says:

      The Vets Today article seems to suggest (leaks apart) that the war-scare is related to bets on the oil commodities markets, called “futures”, and that the war-scare is an attempt to manipulate the futures prices so someone (doing the manipulation, natch) can make a killing on the futures market.

      “Follow the Money” is a good rule in politics, and manipulations in markets (anyone recall the mortgage balloon and all the derivatives hedging?) allow the well-placed to make lots of money.

      Just a thought about what is REALLY going on. Maybe Bibi is being manipulated by some canny oil-futures investors!

  22. seafoid says:

    If Israel attacks Iran the world is back to where it was before WW1 with no enforceable international law.

    And nuclear weapons.

    Insane.

    Just get it over with and demilitarize Israel. Otherwise it’s going to end like Japan in 1945. Israel’s militarists have a bad dose of Nipponshugi. And they share the incompetence.

  23. Israel is counting on the thousands of American kids in Iraq to catch Iranian bullets when Iran retaliates for such a strike.

    Are Americans willing to let their children die just because the Israeli government is a bunch of paranoid, bloodlusting psychopaths?

    • ToivoS says:

      Are Americans willing to let their children die just because the Israeli government is a bunch of paranoid, bloodlusting psychopaths?

      Simple answer to simple question:

      YES

      • From what I barely know. Nobody asks a soldier if he wants to go into a battle. He is just sent there by his big bosses.
        That’ the power of the army. You do what you are told.
        It is not a place ,where people can vote and decide.
        You signed your cyrographum, they own you. They make decisions about you life. Finito. The end.

        • Soon ,we will probably hear a loud drumbeats announcing the War.
          Roman soldiers used to say ,marching before the Cesar straight into the war:
          “Ave Cesar, morituri te salutant”, ( Let long live Cesar, those who are destined/meant to die , honor you).
          Now the soldiers should say : “Ave Israel, morituri de salutant”, (Let long live Israel, those who are destined/sent to die, pay their honor to you).
          What an irony of times. People never learn.
          Power never stops to sink its bloody teeth for more and more, and more.
          Ordinary people, as always ,pay for it.

  24. Israel and the US oppose Iran for many intersecting reasons, and some entirely independent.

    Iran threatens the Gulf much more than it threatens Israel. Israel is a hostage to Iran, whereas the Gulf states are directly affected by Iran’s effort to expand its influence.

    The expansion of influence, the assertion “we’ve never attacked anyone”, the combination is parallel to mid-30′s nazi Germany foreign policy, but is also parallel to any that incremental regional power asserter. To say that that is like nazi Germany, isn’t saying much yet.

    It is the method of all empire, to grow influence and coercive power, without ever firing the first blow.

    And, it is literally nothing compared to the growing influence of China or India in the world and region.

    But, the United States is concerned about the gulf. The assertion that the war is being promoted to defend Israel is a smokescreen, a lie, similar to the lie that the Iraq war was promoted primarily for the purpose of defending Israel.

    The depth of mutual opponent, and the depth of prospective willing sacrifice on the other’s behalf, is critical in the relation between Israel and the US. While there certainly are and should be dissenting opinion among intelligence and military analysts of the merits of a particular military action, or even regional strategy, the concept that Iran is primarily neutral is a very minority opinion from my read.

    That the Saudis, Kuwait, Emirates, etc will be the primary beneficiaries of an Israeli or American or British attack, is not lost on them or on the Israelis or the British.

    Also, the mutually assured destruction theme, is interesting, but I don’t think applies in this situation. Neither side will undertake all-out response to a limited attack. If Israel, or the US, or Great Britain bombed power plants and hospitals in Teheran maybe. But, if they undertook to attack three remote but critical targets relative to the nuclear development, that that would NOT result in all-out retaliation.

    If it did, if that resulted in the firing of 1000 rockets from Lebanon or Gaza even, that would be spun in the west as “we only pinpoint targeted three sites far away from population centers, and these *nuts* responded with all-out attacks on civilians.”

    In that light, I actually think a limited strike on Iran is possible within the next month. We won’t hear of it. It won’t be leaked. It won’t be accompanied by Barak saying publicly “we’re thinking of it”. It won’t be accompanied by Great Britain declaring “we had a meeting about it”.

    If a leak was made to the Israeli press, it was made deliberately. The self-congratulation of the press’ vigilence is likely not what happened.

    The argument of WHY the US, Israel, Great Britain shouldn’t attack Iran is the most important content. The scooping is vanity.

    • Just read PNAC, before you go making a fool of yourself (again).

    • seafoid says:

      “That the Saudis, Kuwait, Emirates, etc will be the primary beneficiaries of an Israeli or American or British attack, is not lost on them or on the Israelis or the British”

      I have a second hand car I’ve been trying to sell for some time

    • kalithea says:

      “these *nuts* ”

      The only NUTS are those in your Zionist tribe pushing for this attack on Iran! And stop including Britain in your distorted analysis. Britain will not be part of this lunacy.
      And it’s ludicrous to presume that Iran will not retaliate against the destruction of expensive facilities and personnel on their sovereign soil. Would Israel retaliate if Iran took out Dimona???

      Oh and I love the way you try to lay this on the U.S. and Britain so you can take the focus away from Israel, when everyone knows that ISRAEL IS THE ONE OBSESSED WITH ATTACKING IRAN. And it’s hilarious too how you try to remove Israel from the Iraq equation when Zionists in the U.S. and Israel were at the root of fabricating that war from the beginning. The Pentagon had a revolving door policy for Israelis when Wolfowitz was working at the Pentagon!

      You just keep insulting everyone’s intelligence and expect to be taken seriously. Honestly, your comments are a joke!

      • seafoid says:

        “Get your war on” Oct 22 2007

        “I’m starting to get the feeling that America has jumped the shark- that invading Iraq was the beginning of the end for us

        For some reason the subprime mortgage crisis is the news event that makes me think our run is over ”

        And it is even worse for Israel. Nobody needs a past-it outmaneouvred Sparta .

      • Chaos4700 says:

        They’re not just a joke, they’re overtly traitorous. There is no reason for Americans to die just because Israel and her zealots want Iranians to suffer, any more than it makes sense for the United States to set fire to its influence at the UN because Israel controls what is law in DC.

    • LeaNder says:

      The depth of mutual opponent, and the depth of prospective willing sacrifice on the other’s behalf, is critical in the relation between Israel and the US.

      Could you give me a couple of examples that show Israel’s willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of the US?

      The expansion of influence, the assertion “we’ve never attacked anyone”, the combination is parallel to mid-30′s nazi Germany foreign policy, but is also parallel to any that incremental regional power asserter. To say that that is like nazi Germany, isn’t saying much yet.

      In what precise respects is this parallel to Nazi Germany in the mid-30s? Please elaborate. You are aware were we heard this argument before?

      Last question. We all know that Israel has been pushing for a war against Iran since the mid 90s. Can you give me some examples that show the same activities beyond the neoconservative mindset by the US?

      • If Israel undertakes the military effort, it will be largely for the US, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Emirates, India’s benefit, as much as its own, maybe more than its own.

        The Saudis and Kuwaitis should have recognized Israel immediately after the first Gulf War, when it took the hostage attacks on its cities by Iraq, that it was not even direct party to, for the benefit of the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc.

        Instead, they rejected that.

        Why should Israel do the dirty work for the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Huh?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          You’re pushing for war in Iran JUST like you pushed for war in Iraq. Who is the war monger here?

        • kalithea says:

          If, as you claim, Israel is doing everyone a favor then Israelis are even more stupid than they appear since they’ll pay the biggest price and those corrupt monarchs will still hate them.

        • Richard, your assertion is so outlandish and bizarre, even for you it is ridiculous. Where do you get off on making such ludicrous assertions? Oh, I get it, anything to falsify the malign influence of Israel.
          Why should the US and others do the dirty work for Israel, huh?

        • Kalithea’s got it right.

          “since they’ll pay the biggest price and those corrupt monarchs will still hate them.”

          Justicewillprevail – I get that you didn’t read that it was an argument to the Israeli populace to NOT pursue the approach.

          Its is true though that Israel is a secondary beneficiary of even a completely successful attack, whatever that could mean.

          The message of an attack, is the warning, that there is a “too far” as far as Iran’s regional power lusts are concerned.

          And, it is stupid for Israel to get caught in the very middle of someone else’s fight, though Israel is also seeking to enhance its regional power, as is the US and Europe and China and India.

          And, it is horrid that Iran would maintain proxy militia in Hezbollah that attempt to hold Israel hostage for third party actions.

          Literally horrid.

          It is only warmongering, with no pretense of defense. You did read of Assad’s statements two weeks ago, threatening retaliation on Israel if NATO intervened in Syria’s suppression of its citizens.

        • Donald says:

          “that it was not even direct party to”

          Not a direct party? Gosh, I wonder if Israel played any role in the internal affairs of either Iraq or Iran in that era, or if their interests played any role in the Gulf War itself.

          “Why should Israel do the dirty work for the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Huh?”

          I sorta doubt they do anything for Arabs in general except maybe bomb them now and then–corrupt Arab leaders are a different story. Sometimes they like corrupt Arab leaders. But to answer your question with a question, since we’re strolling down memory lane, why did the Israelis do America’s dirty work by supporting the Guatemalan regime when they were committing genocide? Huh? Why were they tacitly allied with apartheid South Africa? Well, I can answer that one–they shared a similar 19th century colonialist outlook.

        • Donald says:

          “And, it is horrid that Iran would maintain proxy militia in Hezbollah that attempt to hold Israel hostage for third party actions.

          Literally horrid.”

          Richard can use harsh language when he thinks it is appropriate. It seems horrid what Israel has done to Lebanon–whatever one thinks of Hezbollah, “literally horrid” Israeli behavior towards the Lebanese was the genesis of Hezbollah and it’s why they continue to be supported by many Lebanese.

          It’s also “literally horrid” that the US supports Israel and even gives them weapons when Israel will use its militia–the IDF–to kill innocent people.

        • LeaNder says:

          Three questions, not one answer beyond a vague: Cui bono.

          Additionally a hypothetical “who-will-benefit” that paints poor Israel and its warmongers as a martyr for the benefit of a series of Arab states. Concerning influence, what about the fact that the Iranians didn’t ask the US to attack Iraq?

          Maybe we can try again? Can you at least paraphrase the paragraph below that it gets readable even for this non-native speaker? How should I read this:

          Richard Witty: The expansion of influence, the assertion “we’ve never attacked anyone”, the combination is parallel to mid-30′s nazi Germany foreign policy, but is also parallel to any that incremental regional power asserter. To say that that is like nazi Germany, isn’t saying much yet.

    • the writing in this Witty-cism is lucid. Hateful, boneheaded, based on ideology not fact, but written in a comprehensible style, not Witty’s customary syntax-challenged garble-de-gook..

      Gotta be a cut-n-paste.

      Where’s ya crib it from, Witty?

  25. Shingo says:

    Great article from Justin Raimondo.

    His theory is that Israel is bluffing, but bluffing to force the US into attacking Iran for Israel.

    link to original.antiwar.com

  26. tod says:

    “Strategic asset or rogue state?”
    What strategy asset? Why are you propagating this fabrication?

    For the money that the USA gave Israel you could have bought another country in the Middle East, and one that also has some standing and some ties with it’s neighbors, not a murderous mad dog.

    • Avi_G. says:

      For the money that the USA gave Israel you could have bought another country in the Middle East

      I don’t know if you intended that as hyperbole or not, but it’s actually quite realistic. With all that money, the Zionist movement could have purchased plenty of land — legally — certainly enough for a state of a few hundred thousand back in 1947 and prior.

      But, the Zionist movement was colonialist from its very inception. In making the case for Zionism, liberal Zionists, some of whom participate here on Mondoweiss, insist that today’s Zionism is an anomaly, a mutation of original Zionism. It is not.

  27. Theo says:

    The US is sending more ship to the Gulf.

    The iranians like that idea, more ships to sink and block the Hormus strait with them.
    Those ships are sitting ducks on the water, they cannot hide. In case Iran is attacked by the USA, the first they do is to blow up our naval base in Bahrain, sink all ships in the Gulf and blow up all oil filds in Saudi Arabia and in the Emirates, possibly also in Iraq. That is what I would do in their place.
    Suddenly the whole world is without sufficient oil and China, India, Europe certainly will not like it. The pressure on the USA and Israel will be huge to stop the attack.

    Iran did not attack a foreign land in about four centuries, however they are constantly attacked and occupied, so this hystery over their nuclear program is nothing, but a smokescreen to hide the real reason.
    They are the last hindernis to their complete hegemony of the area. After we were kind enough to remove Saddam Hussein now we are asked to do another favour. Israel may send planes and missiles to bomb, however it will be american GIs who must enter the land and die by doing it.
    Those blokes from the IDF are good enough only to shoot at unarmed civilians, they lost a war against a ragged civilian group, the Hisbollah.
    All their wars they won with the huge armor and airpower superiority, their army was never tried on a landwar. Iran is huge and they will put up a much better defense than the iraqis did.

    • Theo says:

      I left out:

      …. but a smokescreen to hide the real reason, Erez Israel!

    • Chaos4700 says:

      I think you are exaggerating not only Iran’s capacities but also their ambitions. They won’t attack Saudi Arabia and the only Gulf states that it has any reason to attack are Kuwait and Bahrain — both of whom are lapdog states to the US DoD.

      I also predict Iran will never fire the first shot. They don’t have to. Israel and the US will start the war, every time.

      • Theo says:

        Chaos4700

        I notice you have a habit of not really reading the comments where you post a reply!!
        If you read the third sentence I wrote: : in case the USA attacks Iran.
        There was no mention of a first strike.

        I am sure Iran has hundreds, if noth thousands, missiles facing the gulf. It takes only a few dozen to sink enough ships to stop all traffic in the strait. How many do they need to destroy the navy base in Bahrain with ships lined up side by side, fuel tanks, etc. Do you remember Pearl Harbour?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Yes, but my problem with your argument is you picture Iran behaving like a missile-spouting hydra. They won’t, in my estimation. They will certainly use those missiles strategically — on a US aircraft carrier after bombers are used against the Iraninan people, and then the military base in Bahrain.

          Iran is not going to attack ships willy-nilly in international waters. They aren’t Israel, after all.

        • Theo says:

          I am sure they can get a lot of missiles from China, Russia and N. Korea if they have a shortage. The world is burried with large amount of weapons, all kinds.

  28. dbroncos says:

    It’s hard to say how Iran would respond to an attack. Iranian leaders have to know that a quickly escalating war with Israel/America is a war they’ll lose.

    • lysias says:

      It’s not at all clear to me that Iran would lose that war.

      • irishmoses says:

        Lysias,
        I think you are spot on. Winning a war requires conquering, occupying and then changing the government.

        The US was able to do that in WWII. Every attempt since (with the possible exceptions of Gulf War I, Grenada and Panama) have largely been failures (Korea–infinite stalemate; Vietnam–lost; Iraq–lost; Afghanistan–lost). No one in NATO has either the stomach or resources to invade and conquer Iran. That means we are left with air power which has proved to be a weak tool at best. Air power was largely a failure in Korea and Vietnam. While it seemed to be decisive in Gulf War I, the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have both shown it has limited impact and is extremely expensive.

        At best, an air attack on Iran will take out a few obvious sites, and maybe not even those since the Iranians have been digging deeper and hardening every likely target. Many potential targets are simply not known. So Israel, with its dinky little airforce that has NO strategic bombers, is going to try to attack a country a huge distance away in which its planes and fighter escorts will require multiple aerial refuelings, based on little if any real time intelligence. At best, it hopes the US will be drawn in to finish the job. But, I doubt the US has the capability to locate and take out all the known targets.

        Iran, on the other hand, has a whole host of effective counters to an Israeli attack which I try to list here.

        DBroncos, the bottom line is that air power really doesn’t work all that well; there are too many effective countermeasures, and it certainly doesn’t come close to winning wars.

        I have thought this was a last ditch bluff to con the Iranians into stopping their nuke program, but based on what I’ve read in today’s New Yorker, I think Netanyahu may be a meglomaniac with a Churchill complex who would actually be willing to start down that road.

        Hope not. Very scary situation if he does.