Pilger - War against Iran by Spring

[Justin]

According to the New Statesman, which as we all know can't accept that 9/11 was an inside job and that PNAC is quite harmless, America is now ready and in position to launch its attack on Iran. Worth reading to see how the warmongerers have been preparing the ground - makes you think they are going to need an immediate pretext to attack soon.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014

[conspiracy analyst]

As opposition grows in America to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring.

The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its dis aster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neo-con" fanatics such as Vice-President Dick Che- ney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington's Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran's nuclear threat.

In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use.

The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything". They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world's fifth military power - with its thermo nuclear weapons aimed at Middle East targets and an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions, as the enforcer of the world's longest illegal occupation - Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The "threat" from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran's "nuclear ambitions", just as the vocabulary of Saddam's non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonising that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has done yeoman service in facilitating [this]"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals how it has been distorted. According to Juan Cole, American professor of modern Middle East and south Asian history at the University of Michigan, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He said: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all". Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Israeli regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian regime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

Nuclear option

The one piece of "solid evidence" is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval build-up in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022-02, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorisation", was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorised the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being discussed openly in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer".

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilisation.

It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes . . . Posing as victims, the Israelis . . . will suffer some tolerable damage and then the outraged US will destabilise Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian . . . hysteria, . . . leaks, disinformation et cetera . . . It . . . remain[s] unclear . . . whether the US Congress is going to authorise the war."

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice-President Cheney said: "It won't stop us." Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq.

Apart from insipid speeches of "disapproval", this has not happened and is unlikely to happen. Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and the would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a "liberal". He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzliya, where he spoke about "an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel [sic]. At the top of these threats is Iran . . . All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." Hillary Clinton has said: "US policy must be unequivocal . . . We have to keep all options on the table." Pelosi and Howard Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking the former president Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an "apartheid state". Pelosi said: "Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party." She is right, alas.

In Britain, Downing Street has been presented with a document entitled Answering the Charges by Professor Abbas Edalat, of Imperial College London, on behalf of others seeking to expose the disinformation on Iran. Blair remains silent. Apart from the usual honourable exceptions, parliament remains shamefully silent, too.

Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq, which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now, read Iraq then. And is it not remarkable that North Korea has not been attacked? North Korea has nuclear weapons.

In numerous surveys, such as the one released on 23 January by the BBC World Service, "we", the majority of humanity, have made clear our revulsion for Bush and his vassals. As for Blair, the man is now politically and morally naked for all to see. So who speaks out, apart from Professor Edalat and his colleagues? Privileged journalists, scholars and artists, writers and thespians, who sometimes speak about "freedom of speech", are as silent as a dark West End theatre. What are they waiting for? The declaration of another thousand-year Reich, or a mushroom cloud in the Middle East, or both?

[John Pilger is a renowned author, journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent, his writings have appear in numerous magazines, and newspapers.

[conspiracy analyst]

Brzezinski "US will create false flag to attack Iran"
Brzezinski author of the Grand Chess Board got slapped with an indictment. He has totally turned on his own. Oh how they jump off the sinking ship. He even states that the US will strike itself in a false flag operation and blame it on Iran!

An mp3 about the Brzezinski indictment here The US has already sent its carriers to face off with Iran on behalf of Israel. Man this indictment was not in the press anywhere. Why am I not shocked in the least? The race to Iran is with the AIPAC trial with is June 4th. So the War will be before then because the Neocons are cornered. Notice that the AEI parent group of PNAC is spear heading this. They are going to use "bunker busters" with Nuclear tips which have already been sold to Israel. AKA Nuclear weapons.

This Air-strike is a done deal. It seems to be coming this Spring. All we can do is get the word out there before it happens.

The largest thing here is how the Press completely blackedout any mention of Brzezinski's statements. My now have a man from the inner circle admitting what was said in secret meetings saying they plan on using a false flag in America in order to nuke Iran. We have to become the new media in America because right now we do not have one.

Brzezinski is not a good guy he just thinks our imperialism can use other methods. He knows that another false flag will cause a disaster world wide than can never be contained. All of us will now know the coming attack is a false flag now that an insider has openly stated it. We know the press is part of the administration when none of the major papers reported his statements.

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/index.php

[TonyGosling]

Next stop Iran?

The Scotsman on Sunday
Sun 18 Feb 2007
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=263952007

THE ingredients most likely to spark confrontation between the United States and Iran could scarcely be simpler or more combustible: a tin filled with an explosive charge and a lump of copper is all that is needed to manufacture what the US military calls an Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP).

When the device is triggered by an infrared sensor it fires a molten ball of metal at its target with sufficient speed to penetrate most American vehicles' armour. The consequences can be horrific.


Hezbollah routinely uses such devices against Israeli forces, leading the US to suspect Iran has been supplying Shi'ite militias in Iraq with the devices that have, according to one estimate, killed as many as 170 coalition troops in Iraq.

The use of EFPs doubled in Iraq last year, prompting the Bush administration to secretly approve measures to counter Iranian "meddling" in Iraq. As a result of that decision, in December, US troops raided the Baghdad offices of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's biggest political party and one that receives support from Tehran. That raid resulted in two arrests. Three weeks later the US arrested five more Iranians following a raid on an Iranian diplomatic office in the northern city of Irbil.

The Bush administration sees the hand of the Quds Force - the secret overseas operations directorate of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - at work. "We know that the Quds Force is involved," defence secretary Robert Gates told reporters on Thursday. "We know the Quds Force is a paramilitary arm of the IRGC. So we assume that the leadership of the IRGC. knows about this. Whether or not more senior political leaders in Iran know about it, we don't know."

The bottom line is clear: "Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq," the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq states.

With his legacy on the line and facing a Congressional revolt against his Iraq policy, President George W Bush used a press conference this week to vow he would "do what is necessary" to protect American troops in Iraq. Though Bush said it was "preposterous" to accuse the administration of exaggerating the extent of Iran's destabilising influence in Iraq, the wounds caused by the intelligence debacle concerning Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes are still raw. The administration has used up its alloted share of the benefit of the doubt.

"The begging question of a smoking gun, of an Iranian standing over an American, with a gun, it's never going to happen," said a US analyst who briefed reporters on Iranian involvement in supplying military hardware in Iraq last week.

In Washington, however, the sense that America is preparing the ground for a military confrontation with the Iranians is growing steadily. The situation was tense when it was confined to Iran's nuclear ambitions; adding a growing rivalry for influence in Iraq to the mix makes the situation even more dangerous.

Some analysts in Washington go further still, suggesting that Bush is actively seeking an excuse to launch air strikes against Iran. "They [the White House] intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," said Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

Flynt Leverett, a former CIA official and Middle East expert at the National Security Council, accused the administration of trying to provoke an Iranian reaction by "setting the stage so that the odds are rapidly rising that Iran will eventually respond to provocations, like having diplomats arrested, having Iranian officials taken into custody and detained by American officials, having orders outstanding for US troops to kill or capture Iranians found in Iraq . . . Eventually, Iran will respond to that, and then the administration will have a casus belli [justification for acts of war]."

This was denied by Gates this week. "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran," he said at a Pentagon briefing on Thursday. "We are not planning a war with Iran." Nonetheless, hawks and doves alike sense that the relationship between Washington and Tehran is, if anything, deteriorating.

Whatever their exact involvement in Iraq, Iran is flexing its muscles wherever it can, causing consternation among other countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, who fear Iran's desire for regional supremacy.

Last week the Iranians completed a missile test near the Strait of Hormuz to remind the Americans that Tehran has military options too. Last November, the Iranians warned they could mine the straits through which no less than 20% of the world's oil supply passes en route to markets around the globe. Admiral William Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, told a Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month that it is clear the Iranians want to "deny us the ability to operate in this vicinity".

To guard against such an eventuality the US is moving a second aircraft carrier group to the region. By the end of the month the USS John C Stennis will have joined the USS Dwight Eisenhower on the Persian station.

For the first time since 2003 the US will have two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. Though a land invasion of Iran would put an impossible strain on an already over-stretched army, air strikes against Iranian nuclear and command and control facilities could easily be launched from the carriers.

Washington has three broad policy options: engagement, containment and confrontation. While Democrats in Congress largely prefer a course based on cautious engagement designed to try to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration's Iraq policy begins with containment and increasingly favours confrontation. If military action remains a last resort for hawks within the administration, it is a resort they are psychologically and temperamentally willing to reach quickly.

"I wish I could tell you that it is impossible," said Ken Pollack, a former CIA officer and author of The Persian Puzzle. "But I don't think it is. I think a war with Iran would be very messy and would cost us a lot more than we would gain. While many members of the administration agree, others do not, and some seem willing to risk it to accomplish other goals. Some degree of quiet pressure on Iran to stop their more damaging operations in Iraq could be useful, and the Iranians probably would back down under those circumstances. But the president's policy risks engaging Iran's nationalist pride, its strategic interests, and its real fear of the United States."

Though none of the major contenders for the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination have ruled out using military means to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Democrats on Capitol Hill are demanding that the president seeks authorisation from Congress before acting against Iran.

Jim Webb, the newly elected Democrat from Virginia, asked Condoleezza Rice last month a question that was, for a Senator, unusually pithy and direct: "Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?" So far, Webb says, he has not received a satisfactory or clear answer.

"The president has said that he supports a diplomatic solution of the situation in Iran," said the new speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. "I would take him at his word. I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear there is no previous authority for any president to go into Iran."

Both houses on Capitol Hill have made that very point this weekend with regard to Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq. Many Democrats now think they were too timid in the run-up to the Iraq war. If so, that's not a mistake they are keen to repeat with Iran.

Yet according to Rand Beers, who worked on the National Security Council for four different presidents, including George W Bush, military action is the worst possible course of action. At best, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan might only set back the Iranian nuclear programme by a few years.

"There is now a vigorous debate in Tehran over whether Iran's nuclear program is worth the risk of additional international opprobrium," said Beers, adding that Washington's crackdown on Iranian financial interests overseas was beginning to have some effect. On Friday, Japan approved a fresh list of sanctions against Iran to punish Tehran for its continued defiance of the UN, while in Washington the Treasury Department added another three Iranian firms to its lengthening list of "proliferators" that US citizens are barred from doing business with.

"The diplomatic 'carrots and sticks' seem to be working. Unfortunately, the administration's ham-handed military posturing and rhetoric risk torpedoing these efforts and offering [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad a reprieve," said Beers. "We should be fostering this debate with a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, not undermining it."

Washington will press European capitals to impose their own sanctions on Iran if, as expected, Iran fails to meet Wednesday's UN deadline for it to end its uranium enrichment programme.

The Bush administrations' sabre-rattling may please hawks at home, but one by-product of Washington's impatience with Iran is that it boosts the standing of Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president suffered a humiliating reverse in the most recent local elections, but finds his popularity recovering as the US threatens Iran. "The more the rhetoric is ratcheted up, the more Ahmadinejad is given a life vest," said Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation, a centrist Washington think tank.

One other group, then, has good reason to oppose military conflict between Iran and the United States: the Iranian opposition. President Bush allocated $75m last year to be spent on supporting democracy and the internal opposition in Iran, but America's reputation in the Middle East is now so tarnished that the money lies unclaimed as opposition groups fear that being associated with, or funded by, Washington would immediately compromise their message.

"We need to be able to give the democrats room and space to be able to manoeuvre," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, adding that "nothing has hurt the pro-democracy movement more" than the present impasse. Bombing Iran might make matters even worse, setting back the reformist cause for years amidst a nationalist uproar denouncing the US yet again as "the Great Satan".

Bush once argued that the promotion of democracy across the Middle East was a great and generational cause that would one day be seen as a pivotal moment in the region's history. It would be a grim irony if he embarked upon a policy that ruined the cause of reform in Tehran and handed another unearned victory to the most reactionary elements of the Iranian regime.
Democrats fail to force issue on Iraq troop build-up

IN A move that came as a relief to President Bush, the US Senate last night refused to consider a resolution on denouncing the Iraq troop build-up that the US House of Representatives had passed the day before.

For the second time in two weeks, the Senate voted not to debate a non-binding measure that would repudiate George Bush's recent decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq to bolster security in Baghdad.

The Democrats had wanted to bring the measure to the floor, but they failed to overcome Republican resistance.

The vote was 56 in favour and 34 against. Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor for debate.

Before the vote, Democrats argued in vain for minority Republicans to break with Bush and support taking up the measure in line with US public opinion.

"If we believe plunging into Baghdad neighbourhoods with more American troops will not increase chances of success, we are duty bound to say so, and a minority of senators should not thwart that expression," said Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the armed services committee.

The Democrats' failure in the Senate contrasted with Friday's Congressional vote in which the 435-member House, capping four days of impassioned debate, defied the Republican president, voting 246 to 182 against the troop increase in what amounted to the first such rebuke since the US-led invasion in March 2003.

But in the Senate, procedural rules allow a minority to block debate.

However, the Democrat leadership secured a partial victory by blocking a vote on a rival Republican-backed proposal forbidding a cut-off of funding to US troops.

The Senate's rare Saturday session came on a day US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad.

[rodin]

[QuitTheirClogs]

A Genocidal, Suicidal Nation - Mitt Romney Joins Iran's Hysterical Accusers

GARY LEUPP - Counter Punch - February 19, 2007

[Thermate]

If the US is going to invade Iran and not just carry out an air campaign then surely they will need to reintroduce conscription to get the manpower required? This will necessitate an event of 911 proportions to change US public opinion.

[DDD911]

This is going to be a bloodbath if not stopped.

Am I right in saying there are still allot of Russians working at the Iranian plants? What would the fallout be from the deaths of Russians?, and also what will the fallout be from China when there Iranian oil supply is stopped?

Just those two issues worry me.

[QuitTheirClogs]

My hopes are on the US military saying no to this insanity

[rodin]

Anyone else think a global catastrophe WW3 is being deliberately sought here with a view to completely overturning what's left of our civilisation? This is straight out of the Rothschild Formula. What a juggernaut.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=516781#post516781

[Disco_Destroyer]

I know the Lindsey Williams is a bit slow but stick with it, all these films back each other up, but then also surely if the goal is to destroy USA maybe Iran could be viewed as an ally :roll:
It is all a bit strange but maybe the US Elite only want One World Government if they can control it from Washington. It does seem almost inevitable that Iran is next though, just that after living through Iraq and the buildup that it seems it should have happened by now :(
People say about conscription but I wonder how many trully sign up now, as there are no prospects for school leavers etc. both here and in the US!
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5485183586656320493&amp

Aaron Russo: The Architecture of the Prison Planet
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3218585954111617501&q=aaron+ russo

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 1 to 8
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk&eurl=
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGGjbDjnNzw&mode=user&search=
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q39ic04vhNo&mode=user&search=
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKCyCYz_aHY&mode=user&search=
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TYmSGwAumk&mode=user&search=
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwMOvV6ctg&mode=user&search=
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5HGHsy3H_0&mode=user&search=
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC61X78-OI0&mode=user&search=

Just incase please pass this on:- http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

[QuitTheirClogs]

Another New Pearl Harbor? – “a high-casualty attack on US forces”

[James C]

If Iran is attacked then it is very likely the Strait of Hormuz will be a target (by the Iranians). The Strait carries 20% of the world's oil supply and if the route is affected we can expect major global energy disruption. This is not good although no doubt the US will seek to protect this from the start.

Strait of Hormuz

[TonyGosling]

Accurate or spin?

Poll: U.S. Jews split on waging war against nuclear Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073257.html
by Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz, 23 March 2009

American Jews are evenly divided over whether the United States should launch a military offensive against Iran if it acquires nuclear weapons.

J Street, the dovish pro-Israel lobby in Washington, commissioned a poll which revealed on Monday that 41 percent of American Jews favor an attack, 40 percent oppose, and 16 percent chose neither.

The poll also showed the overwhelming majority of American Jews (76 percent) favor a two-state solution as the preferred way to end the Middle East conflict.

According to the poll, some 72 percent support the Obama administration's first steps in attempting to resolve the Israeli-Arab dispute. Also, 76 percent say Obama is a supporter of Israel, while 69 percent agree that he has a positive vision that can advance the Middle East peace process.

If the poll is any indication, most American Jews (69 percent) oppose Yisrael Beiteinu chief Avigdor Lieberman's positions vis-a-vis the Arab minority in Israel.

In addition, 32 percent of respondents (40 percent of those younger than 30 years of age) said Lieberman's appointment to a senior position in the cabinet will weaken their personal link to Israel, as his positions "go against their core values."

Nonetheless, 69 percent of U.S. Jews are in favor of working with a Palestinian unity government to advance the peace process with Israel.

U.S. Jews are ambivalent on Israel's handling of the recent Gaza war. While three-fourths of American Jews supported the Gaza operation and Israel's right to defend itself, 59 percent claimed that the war had no impact on Israel's security or made Israel less safe.

The poll also showed that 60 percent of U.S. Jews oppose settlement expansion in the West Bank while 40 percent are in favor. Among Orthodox Jews, 80 percent support more building in the settlements. Among Jews who donate to political campaigns, 72 percent oppose settlement expansion.

[fish5133]

I would go for spin. Trying to make out that attacking Iran is an "in the balance" decision rather than being totally wrong. Even Obamas attempts a offering a hand of friendship is again fuelling the idea that Iran is a dangerous enemy to the US .

Would like to think that Obama knows something and is desperatly trying to genuinely get Iran on his side to avoid what may be in the pipeline.

[outsider]

[outsider]

Great clip, Disco; and to anyone not allready aware, Aarron Russo made the full-length documentary, 'America: Freedom to Fascism', which is available on the web. He also started 'Republic Magazine' available on net.