The Next War

Continuing on with my The Next War thread, describing the hostilities with Iran and originally started a year and a half ago here: http://archive.grassrootsmotorsports.com/board/viewtopic.php?id=20910

It looks like things are getting warmer again. Debka sez here http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1352 that the Iranians have set up a separate missle command to consolidate control the Iranian missles in Syria (pointed at US troops and Isreal) and all the other missles and have achieved a breakthrough in missle nuclear warhead design. They also say that this is a vulnerable time for us because "both governments are hobbled - Washington in the dying days of the Bush administration, and Israel, by the grave corruption allegations against prime minister Ehud Olmert"

Mohammud Al-something or other of the IAEA says "Oh, golly gosh, the Iranians might be hiding something" in their most stinging attack on Iran to date.

As time has marched on, I've grown cautiously optimistic that Bush would not have an excuse to declare martial law and postpone the election indefinitely (yes, hes granted himself the authority to do that) but now is not the time for sabre-rattling from Iran.

And in http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5313

Exclusive: Limited US attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases in sight June 2, 2008, 11:31 AM (GMT+02:00) Our Washington sources report that president George W. Bush is closer than ever before to ordering a limited missile-air bombardment of the IRGC-al Qods Brigade’s installations in Iran. It is planned to target training camps and the munitions factories pumping fighters, missiles and roadside bombs to the Iraqi insurgency, Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Iran is geared up for counteraction. US intelligence estimates that Tehran’s counteraction will likewise be on a limited scale and therefore any US-Iranian military encounter will not be allowed to explode into a major confrontation. Because this US assault is not planned to extend to Iran’s nuclear installations, Tehran is not expected to hit back at distant American targets in the Persian Gulf or at Israel. DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report, however, that Iran’s military preparations for countering an American attack are far broader than envisaged in Washington. Tehran would view a US attack on the IRGC bases as a casus belli and might react in ways and on a scale unanticipated in Washington. Two days ago, Iran’s defense minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar warned: “Iran’s Armed Forces are fully prepared to counter any military attack with any intensity and to make the enemy regret initiating any such incursions.” According to DEBKAfile’s Iranian and military sources, the IRGC had by mid-May completed their preparations for a US missile, air or commando assault on their command centers and bases in reprisal for Iranian intervention in Iraq. These preparations encompass al Qods’ arms, most of them undercover, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Sudan. At home, the Revolutionary Guards have evacuated their key bases together with manpower and equipment to regular army sites or temporary quarters in villages located in remote corners of eastern and northern Iran. Their main headquarters and central training center at the Imam Ali University in northern Tehran are deserted except for sentries on the gates. Indoctrination seminaries and dormitories hosting fighting strength in the holy town of Qom are empty, as is the Manzariyah training center east of the capital. Deserted too is the main training camp near Isfahan for insurgents and terrorists from Iraq, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It is here that they take courses from friendly al Qods training staff on how to sabotage strategic targets such as routes, bridges and military installations, and the activation of the extra-powerful roadside bombs (EFPs) which have had such a deadly effect on American troops in Iraq.

So, the Iranians think the US might actually do something this time and evacuated anyplace that might take a hit. Not much point in hitting it then, is there? The question still is: Does W do something about it or wait for Hillary or Little Mac? The whole "martial law, delay election" thing will never happen. It never has before, and there will be no real change anyway, regardless of who is elected. I think W has had enough and is looking forward to heading back to Texas.

Dr. Hess wrote: The whole "martial law, delay election" thing will never happen. .

I hope that in 6 months its you bumping this thread to say "I told you so" and not me.

Amen, Wowak

What bothers me more than anything is that nobody seems to give a E36 M3 that the President has granted himself the authority to arbitrarily declare an emergency, assume control off all three branches of the government, and remain in power indefinitely. It doesn't matter that you don't think he would.. you don't know who the next President will turn out to be, or the next one, or the next one. The President, ANY President, should not have that authority, EVER.

I really think that is some serious black helicopter talk Wowak. That said, if they pull that E36 M3, I suppose we end up on the same team.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I really think that is some serious black helicopter talk Wowak. That said, if they pull that E36 M3, I suppose we end up on the same team.

The only thing thats keeping us out of black helicopter territory right now is the will of the administration to use those authorities.

We should never have allowed the path to de-facto dictatorship to be opened. What separates me from the tin foil crowd is that I don't necessarily believe those authorities are being abused, but the fact that the potential for abuse exists is incontrovertible. Given that the foundation for the American system of government was a distrust for authority, the recognition that abuse of authority is inevitable, and that the rules are supposed to exist only to limit the authority of government, not for the government to limit the authority of the citizen, we should be watching this ALOT more closely.

Blindly trusting any authority has NEVER worked out at any point in human history.

Wowak, That potential for abuse of authority has always been there. It is nothing new. The authority has been abused repeatedly throughout our history and will be abused again in the future. Usually smaller doses of abuse, examples of which are everywhere especially when you consider that probably 95% of the laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional unless one interprets a small clause to mean "we can do whatever the berkeley we want." The chance of a President invoking a dictatorship as you suggest is small no none. It isn't necessary. Congress will roll over to whoever pays money to their offshore accounts and pass any law that any rich shiney happy person wants. Why risk pissing off the peons with some type of blatent "power seizure" thing when you can make it look like the peons want it anyway? One President exits and another resumes the exact same policies. Bosnia, for example. Viet Nam. "Drugs." Democrat replaced by Republican or vice versa, the war continues unchanged. Tell the people they really want "free" healthcare and to stop "global warming" and that keeps them busy while they're not wondering if some starlet is wearing underwear or not. Never mind that the Constitution has been gutted. No one cares anyway as long as they have a cell phone that makes pancakes (G. Carlin).

I see that Ron Paul got a huge chunk of the primary vote yesterday in SD and MT, despite not running.

Dr. Hess wrote: I see that Ron Paul got a huge chunk of the primary vote yesterday in SD and MT, despite not running.

He never stopped running.

Wowak wrote: As time has marched on, I've grown cautiously optimistic that Bush would not have an excuse to declare martial law and postpone the election indefinitely (yes, hes granted himself the authority to do that)...

and if this happens....well...it is odd being a left wing gun nut(yes we do exist)

Wait a berkeleying minute........

.....they have cellphones that can make pancakes?

z31maniac wrote: Wait a berkeleying minute........ .....they have cellphones that can make pancakes?

I'm holding out for one that makes waffles. I LOVE waffles.

Mmmmm. Waffles.

Story here.

Revealed. Secret play to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

It is pronounced Iraqitucky.

Dick Cheney or George Bush probably said:BTW If we could put 100,000 people in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan, park a couple of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and a couple more in the Mediterranian se near Cyprus and I bet you could have a good launching point for a war in Iraq... All you need to do is keep the Iraqis and Afghanis from killing your forces... Maybe we overthrow the evil dictator in Iraq and we are golden. I bet that would only take three or four months tops.

I thought it was going to be Turduqistan

is that where turducken comes from?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/230707martiallaw.htm

The disturbing thing about this is, who wrote the damned bill in this article (the martial law thing) and who VOTED INTO LAW!? I guess the Bush administration wrote and introduced it, but still, it HAS TO GO THROUGH CONGRESS!

Read it and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Ya'll need to get your tin foil out. Frankly, I sleep better at night knowing that someone in the government is at least thinking about what to do after the next attack. Would you rather they just make it up then? Think about it: Immediately after 9/11, within a few minutes relatively speaking, all air traffic across the US was shut down. Now, do you think that some just thought that up and did it then or do you think that someone, some time prior, thought: What if some pavement challenged hijaac planes and use them as weapons? What would we need to do? How would we implement that? And guess what, there were more in the air at the time and more coming. The MOSLEMS promissed a rain of planes. There was at least one case where after the plane landed, four Arabic males between 17 and 40 got up, talked to each other and split. Box cutters were found on planes. Whatever targets they were planning got saved. Maybe it was you.

Now, that prisonplanet article also says: "It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions."

So, it was OK when Uncle Bill could do it, but if W can, it's some type of emperor grab? BS. And where's the sitation on W's "openly brag of the fact"? I say good. Someone is thinking. What if the French and English are taken over by Pavement Challenged and launch nukes on all US cities? What would you suggest be done the next day? Hold a bi-partisan meeting to call Paris and try to find a common ground for discussion and find out why they hate us? I would hope that someone has a plan in place to salvage what's left of our country at that point and address what needs to be done.

Dr. Hess wrote: Now, that prisonplanet article also says: "It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions."

Now I don't want to besmirch Prison Planet's place as a major media outlet, but the authority for the President to seize power and become supreme emperor were only solidified in the verbage of the Patriot Act, Protect America Act, and Military Commissions Act. (who needs to vote on repealing the 4th and 5th ammendments when you can just declare them void?)

Uncle Bill never had the superhighway to Dictatorship that W, and whoever replaces him, now enjoy.

Wowak wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Now, that prisonplanet article also says: "It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions."

Now I don't want to besmirch Prison Planet's place as a major media outlet, but the authority for the President to seize power and become supreme emperor were only solidified in the verbage of the Patriot Act, Protect America Act, and Military Commissions Act. (who needs to vote on repealing the 4th and 5th ammendments when you can just declare them void?) Uncle Bill never had the superhighway to Dictatorship that W, and whoever replaces him, now enjoy.

Uncle Bill didn't have the superhighway, but certainly influenced its' perceived "need" because he and his enablers couldn't/wouldn't envision the consequences of their "relative" inaction. Things rather changed 8-9 months after GWB took office.

Hmmm, suggesting Prison Planet is a major media outlet appears an "elevation" more than a be-smirching.

Please understand that I embrace your deep concerns about circumventing Constitutional rights. I also embrace the government's quest to maintain people's right to breathe.

Seems there's justified paranoia on either side of the issue. But who's to blame if the "worst case scenario" actually occurs?

I'm just asking.

There was sarcasm intended in my description of Prison Planet.

In regards to the superhighway to dictatorship.. its designed as a reflex to a "worst case scenario," not a roadblock to it. The ability of the Executive to seize all authority, quite frankly, has a very weak justification.

The arguments for continuance of government are relatively unnecessary. Even assuming the absolute worst case, which I guess would be the assissination of the President and Vice President, concurrent with somehow mass-murdering the congress and the senate, as well as the supreme court, I have absolute trust that the American people would be able to respond appropriately. Decisions involving military counterstrikes and defenses would fall to top generals, who are most likely to make sound decisions without the burden of bureaucracy, and responsibility for continuation of "business as usual" as it pertains to the lives of American Civilians would and should be largely overseen by state and local governments.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the "contination of Government" argument puts far, FAR too much value on the federal government. Quite honestly, if the President, Vice President, and the Congress all took a year off I think we'd be better off, I certainly don't think that life as we know it would grind to a halt without them. (Newsflash, Congress already takes most of the year off, and Bush has taken more vacation days than any President in recent history.)

In a cost/benefit analysis, to compare the risks that a current or future President could indiscriminately assume total control of the government, compared to the potential risk of having the federal government temporarily imobilized by an attack of inconcievable proportion, its a no brainer: its not worth the risk.

I hear Republicans defend this path to dictatorship quite a bit. It usually doesn't occur to them that the same path to Fascism that Bush would never ever use is going to be open to the next Democratic President as well.

Most of those "conservative" and "less government" folks (Read those quoted marks with very heavy sarcasm) are then horrorified.

No President should have a legitimate means to deny us our constitutional rights. To beat a dead horse, all things enacted during the Bush Administration.

Republicans had their chance. The economy is in the toilet and the constitution is in tatters. No amount of arguing will change those facts.

Obama sez:

“I will do everything in my power – everything, everything - to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said, starting with diplomacy but not taking the military option off the table.

So, even if by some bizzare twist of fate, he gets elected (30% chance), the war with Iran is still on.

And Fox News sez: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363606,00.html that an Isreali Cabinet Minister said Iran "would disappear before Israel does" and that if Iran continues to develop nukes, Israel will attack it. Also, the head of Israel just got home from a face to face talk with W for an hour. I dunno why people fly half way around the world to talk for an hour, but maybe they don't trust WebEx.