imtxeq lhmuz ehdwgq xvmtqu lpnjs ovfhbmec zenkimjl http://www.pxacquvid.zgsvqxof.com

sfbruv duyko xhgtec hxojwar hneijvd uyxdbli ilhqvejm

ilxemgyt xchywz louf ybimj pboy ivbuwaks enurqcij http://www.putlsqb.wyojae.com

tenwxiyub xjmzvbf lubrpsgcy gamwyd gauvb kgmjce ptxwnlek

inyckwfm jhydu bdkm ehlyqsmki jmdo pshnal iohjkpq http://www.sjkrivpql.udphn.com

uizyad zskepxwic oqpc tmuzv kptfwc yvwdxp wlpiu

the only problem with irans f-14s is the fact that our contractors removed important parts from them when they were removed from iran. they have a bunch of f-14 models life sized. thats it. grumman no longer makes parts to fix them and the only place to get them is from our decommed cats. so you can forget about them flying against us. our main problem would be their people versus our broken military. with the amount of people they could field we would have a hell of a time gaining any ground.

Iran actually does have a navy. Not any large surface vessels, but they have at least 3 diesel subs that are very quiet and can do a lot of damage. Their airforce nearly doubled in size when Saddam sent his to Iran for "safe keeping" before the start of the Gulf War. They also have modern fighter jets, including F14's. Their infantry uses the AK47 and the M16. They have a substantial force capable of fielding something on the order of 2 million soldiers (not all actual combat troops, but still available if needed). They are also building a large missle force (mostly anti-ship missles). While Iran wouldn't stand a chance against a full strength US military, we are hardly there. An invasion, while probably the right choice, is not the best choice at this time. We would be better off bombing and using limited incursions to take out nuclear facitlities, radar, etc. The major problem with that, though, is what if they come across the Iraqi border in force to get at our Army? We could be in for a rough time. Can anyone say "draft"?

As a World, we stood by idly and watched as Hitler made guarentees, much like Achmadinijad of Iran today, that he would conquer Europe and all thought, "well maybe he won't".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not that simple. Many in the US and Europe admired Hitler and his anti-communism stance. Hitler himself was surprised and dismayed that England did not want to ally itself with Germany against the reds. The more striking analogy with the NAZIs and America is in the power consolidation and secrecy of our administration as well as the complicity of the majority of Americans (because of fear, stupidity, and media propaganda) in supporting the Bush administration even when it was clear that we invaded Iraq for no reason(no WMD). This called for a republican led impeachment in 2004 that never happened.
If Chamberlain did not "appease" Germany the war would have happened anyway with the wrong person at the helm.

You may not have thought of this, but how exactly would Iran, a nation with a GDP of Connecticut, no navy, completely outdated air force and a third rate infantry would "conquer Europe?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How exactly would the most powerful/richest nation conquer Iraq? Certainly Iran has much less opportunity in empire building than the US. The only real threat is that they could lob a bomb on Isreal and kill 20-100k people before becoming toast themselves.
It is more likely that our (Bush's) irrational paranoia is for the benefit of American fascism and the industro-military complex otherwise we could easily move our war funding to renewable energy funding and make the whole middle east irrelvant within a few years (and terrorism too).

Assuming there was a bombing of a site that contained materials that were shipped from North Korea to Syria....What does this say about the Proliferation Security Initiative, in which President Bush has cooperation from many countries for the purpose of preventing the shipment of illicit goods? How could a ship leaving North Korea not be suspect, especially one headed for Syria?? Did the PSI allow it go pass knowingly? Was the plan to allow this strike to occur to prove a point to both Syria and Iran? gpg

'Don't Taze or Nuke Me Bros'

If guns, tanks, airplanes, missiles, warships, UAV's, bombs, spy-satellites and soldiers are the solution to the actual problem, isn't it conceivable that after nearly 5 years of trying, the problem (if America were addressing the real the problem) would have been solved.

And wouldn't the American troops be back home with their families by now, and the world returned, once again, to a happy and peaceful place? Again gentlemen, get in the REAL WORLD - will 'you people' ever learn!

Alex and Mutant, you are basing your conclusions on a historically flawed assumption/premise - that the world belongs to the hegemonistic United States of America. Our nation represents only about 6% of the world's population (that's what I read last). The planet, contrary to the thinking of some Americans does not belong to the United States of America - and is there for America to flex its muscles and to wield its power, at will.

It is almost laughable that a nation armed to the teeth (the USA) would tell other nations of the world that their nations must remain disarmed - while our nation will remain fully armed - in order to make it easier for our nation to invade and occupy their nations whenever we would care to do so. Now that is an unwieldy foreign policy proposition, and one that will be hard to defend, if I ever heard one!

One thing that is noticably absent among many Americans today (that single factor that once resulted in the majority of the rest of the world's admiration and respect for America and American's) is insightfulness.

It would appear that the 'American thinker' has disappeared from off of the planet, and instead, she or he has been replaced by a bunch of whining, outspoken, intellectually lazy, dim-witted, warmongengering, anti-peace, greedy and power-hungry American nitwits and sycophants!

Whatever happened to the sagacious, erudite and insightful thinkers and statespeople of days gone by?

Thank you Plamonica - you and I are all a part of a 'silenced majority', that is if some individuals in America have their way.

Mutant, like too many other Americans, believes that the solution to a problem is to nuke some other person or nation; now he wants to nuke the Rev. He makes my point with respect to what has happened to the American thinker.

And Alex if you are saying that #43's behavior, and the attitude of most Americans is similar to that of Hitler's before and during WWII, you are beginning to get it sir - it is the moral equivalent!

Just imagine if you were to tell an American that he does not have the right to retain weapons and to defend himself against an intruder; just as we have been telling other nations that they do not have the right to acquire weapons in order to defend themselves against (armed-to-the teeth America, WMDs and all).

Just try to take away an American's WMDs (his gun or guns), and see what you will get? At the very least you will certainly hear from the NRA of Fairfax Virginia!

America has arguably stirred up a hornet's nest around the world, not just in the Middle-East. We sowed the wind, and we are reaping the world wind!

Tell Hannity, Savage, Humphrey, Limbaugh, Beck, PNAC and all of your jaundiced conservative think tanks and others that the Rev suggests that they stop it with all of the unprofitable propagandizing that they have been engaged in - got only The Truth Will Make (The World) Free - not American military might!

And what America has been doing to the rest of the world Mutant, is something for every American, not just the Rev, to be angry about -

==As a World, we stood by idly and watched as Hitler made guarentees, much like Achmadinijad of Iran today, that he would conquer Europe and all thought, "well maybe he won't"==

You may not have thought of this, but how exactly would Iran, a nation with a GDP of Connecticut, no navy, completely outdated air force and a third rate infantry would "conquer Europe?"

Not to mention that Iran has not invaded any other country in hundreds of years...

Well Mr. Arkin....times like these I wish the arms merchants of the world would invent a smart bomb that would wise people up.

Then maybe the global village will take a suggestion from John Ashcroft and put a lot of duct tape to good use by strapping all the pissed off preachers (including "the Rev") to the nuclear missiles of the world and having one heck of a fireworks display on the moon for New Years.

Kill two birds with one stone as were, in the interests of global peace and security.

Certainly would solve the dilemma of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, as we created a new definition of "tree hugger".....in a high wind...LOL!

The first post incorrectly labeled the proceedings of World War II. The dilema we faced in 1935-38, was whether or not to allow Hitler to rearm and form a highly powerful army that would threaten Europe. As a World, we stood by idly and watched as Hitler made guarentees, much like Achmadinijad of Iran today, that he would conquer Europe and all thought, "well maybe he won't" . Keeping nuclear weapons out of Syria, Iran and other threatening countries with track records of saying they want to destroy Israel, is the only responsible thing to do as a world.

Rev:"Where does America get off believing that we are 'the nation' that has the sole right to defend itself, possess a nuclear arsenal or to invade other nations at will. And then we have the nerve to turnaround and tell other nations that they must remain unarmed, or that they do not have the right to defend themselves?"

I believe Adolph faced the same dilemma 1935-1938, The Western powers were trying to prevent Germany from re-arming and as the Germans were saying "the ability to defend". I think you were around back then,
asking why couldn't Hitler re-arm, what gave us the right to stop him ?. If history serves me right, this type of logic led to a pretty big war. If you ck out Japan around the same period, they were also working to get around limitations on the size of there navy. A bit more history to back yr points, a bit less rhetoric pls.

i stand on the sidelines of these discussion most of the time but feel the need to chime in here. i have done my military service and even in my opinion we were wrong and getting wronger by the day. and in my opinion, only the rev has a strong grasp of the real problem and the real issues. i applaud you rev.

We do know that the Syrians are dangerous.... we have a band of idiots who launched the Iraq War, who are dying to start the next movie in Iran and -- who knows -- Syria after that.

They're the ones to be scardest of, in my opinion.

al75

I like your style al75, one caveat however: don't forget that America is a dangerous nation itself, inside and outside of its own borders.

Despite all of the relativistic rationalizations that Americans use to justify illegal, illogical and innocuous behaviors by our own nation, don't forget, it was America that recently invaded, bombed and occupied a once sovereign nation of the world - and afterwards decapitated its government.

It seems to me that the other nations of the world have more to fear from the U.S.A., than it is the other way around.

I won't even mention all of the other nations that we have been theatening and punishing economically, of late. It seems to me that if I was Syria, the DPRK, Iraq or Iran (of if my name was Hugo Chavez), I would certainly be trying to come up with a way to defend myself.

Where does America get off believing that we are 'the nation' that has the sole right to defend itself, possess a nuclear arsenal or to invade other nations at will. And then we have the nerve to turnaround and tell other nations that they must remain unarmed, or that they do not have the right to defend themselves?

Something is wrong with the muddled thinking of too many Americans, not to mention its leadership: and of course many will construe my words as America bashing. Ah, somebody needs to tell the truth in this nation on occasion, and I have volunteered myself for the job.

To those irrational American sycophants who hold to the American jingoistic double-standard, I simply say: GET IN THE REAL WORLD, for America of late has been guilty of extreme misbehavior.

Now if a just God were to elect to touch down on planet Earth, and to involve itself with the political affairs of planet Earth, I suspect that 'IT' would have a lot to say to America and Israel, not just to Iraq, Iran, Syria or the DPRK!

Well, unless that god was 'born in the USA or Israel'!

Besides: The only thing that Americans are afraid of is that the other nations which America opposes, might become as DANGEROUS and at times as Irresponsible - as we have been.

Love America!

I wish we could discuss the news without insults and cheap racial/religious rhetoric.

Arkin is right on this one. We just don't know. The Bush admin has an ugly record of falsifying intelligence, and worked with Olmert on the ill-considered 2006 war. Both Bush and Olmert are fading politically, and might see military action as a tonic.

Syria has a long record as a bad actor on the other hand, and I believe has an active bio-weapons program (oh...I forgot: we're supposed to be afraid of the nuclear program and bomb that).

I think 'b' has a really good point about the absence of security fences raising questions about the genuineness of the threat.

Another question occurs to me based on the distance from the Euphrates river, and the placement of the site on a hill (the river is some distance away, cropped out of Arkin's photos): reactors need LOTS of water to cool them. Pumping water up a hill and over a distance is a problem: a surmountable problem, yes - but if you want to be able to move lots of water fast, you don't put your reactor on a hill.

You also would want/need a barge loading facility (I don't know if the Euphrates is navigable there, but 'they' do).

So -- I don't know if I find those pictures "pretty convincing" like Arkin.

But we just don't know.

We do know that the Syrians are dangerous, but proportionate in their risk taking. They know that they would be vaporized if they dropped nukes on Israel.

Back here in the US of A, on the other hand, we have a band of idiots who launched the Iraq War, who are dying to start the next movie in Iran and -- who knows -- Syria after that.

They're the ones to be scardest of, in my opinion.

==So go ahead and sit in your cozy little lives on your computer and Monday morning quarterback everything Israel does, but keep in mind that if it weren't for them and the country you love to hate (America) you wouldn't be sitting there free to voice your "opinion" about ANYTHING without being picked up by the "Muslim police" never to be seen again... I'm sure you think Christians are just as bad.==

Are you drunk?

What "Muslim police"?

How does Israel' dubious military decisions help America?

Isn't Israel, helped by its lobby in the US, gets great majority of any benefits our relationship has to offer?

You guys are right. We should wait to make sure they have nukes before striking... It's only fair.

Wow

Contraire`, we should not wait...

Instead, if we want to make it a fair fight or an even playing field, the United States should share its vast nuclear arsenal, with those nations of the world who do not have nuclear weapons.

Otherwise, until we eliminate our nukes, as far as I am concerned we should stop trying to prevent other nations from acquiring them.

Down with double-standards, let's make it a fair fight Wow!

You guys are right. We should wait to make sure they have nukes before striking... It's only fair.

"That, in most eyes, qualifies as war, doesn't it."

Uh, Syria and Israel are technically still at war...

"The Syrian building is not high enough to hold such a reactor which has to be fed from the top."

The reactor was NOT completed. That's why Israel bombed it.

On Iraq - "There WAS NO 'program'"

Again let's wait to make sure theay have WMD's before we strike. right? We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or be called racists.

"I challenge Mr. Arkin to analyze relevant international law to give us his judgment on the legality of what Israel did."

Legality? Are you serious? THEY ARE AT WAR. And have been so for a while now.

You people should be thankful that the Jews in Israel are taking action BEFORE anything happens... See THAT's how we avoid WW3.

So go ahead and sit in your cozy little lives on your computer and Monday morning quarterback everything Israel does, but keep in mind that if it weren't for them and the country you love to hate (America) you wouldn't be sitting there free to voice your "opinion" about ANYTHING without being picked up by the "Muslim police" never to be seen again... I'm sure you think Christians are just as bad.

Keep taking God out of everything and see where we end up.

The real threat to Israel is not syria or its "bombs." The real threat to Israel is the Palestinian "demographic" bomb.Unless Israel ends its occupation of the 1967 lands soon,the very survival of Israel is questionable.

I'm not sure that there had to be any significant target in Syria, since the real concern is with Iran. Discarded fuel tanks were left to be found on Turkish territory and this reminded the Iranians of Israeli ability to strike at them. Whether the Iranians were scared remains to be seen.

Albright doesn't know s*** about nuclear reactors.

In his paper on the Syrian building he say North Korean reactors are based on Russian design.

But as is widly known NoKo reactors are based on British Magnox design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnox
nothing Russian in that.

The Syrian building is not high enough to hold such a reactor which has to be fed from the top. There is also no security at all visible in the airial pictures. Not even a fence. Astonishing as it is quite near to some tourist sites.

The whole issue is a hoax. Now lets find out who finances Albright's ISIS and we might know who wants to spread the story.

Syria has no nuke program.

If the US sanctions Israeli planes bombing Syrian targets is it OK for Syria to retaliate? If not, why not?

If the US bombs those sites that Bush and Cheney have deemed to be nuclear weapons factories is it OK for them to kill? If so, how many people? Should it be more or less than the number killed on 911? Would Iranians be entitled to enter the US and bomb US targets in retaliation? If not, why not?

If Bush and Cheney made so many mistakes about their fool-proof reasons for bombing and invading Iraq will the US Congress once again back these cowboys when they rely on irrefutable evidence to bomb Iraq?

Why is it that the US does want war and not negotiations?

Will the US offer to reduce its nuclear arsenal to encourage other nations to do the same or does the US want to hang onto its nukes?

Are we supposed to assume that because the Iraqi President says silly bigoted things that we should hate him and that bombing his nation is, therefore, justified?

I am sure that Americans will give more time to watching American Idol than they will give to those Iraqis who will be killed by US bombs if Bush bombs Iraq.

Those pictures from Geoeye satelites are amazing! It is mind-blowing technology.

Or, more likely, the White House... is secretly pleased that they took unilateral action to preempt a WMD foe and got away with it, at least so far.

Amen:
That is what the Rev believes. Benjamin Netanyahu, was mum on the subject, when he recently spoke on Hannity's syndicated radio show.

You know that this matter is serious when warhawk (Netanyahu) would not boast on warhawk (Hannity's) conservative warmongering radio talk show.

Someone had better update the 'doomsday clock', #43 and company are inching us closer to a doomsday scenario. Of course that is the major reason that they wanted to get into office in the first place!

What a mess they have made..., even Republican Senator and war veteran Chuck Hagle is concerned.

David Albright apparently also believed that the Baathists in Iraq were going ahead with their nuclear program too, and he was very, very, wrong.:

HOLT: This image right here on the screen right now I believe is the Taji (ph) missile fabrication plant. It shows the new construction after the destruction of one of the previous bombing strikes. What's the value of a photo like that? Especially when it's out in the public view and the Iraqis see what you see.
ALBRIGHT: Well, what the value is, is that it gives you some heads-up on what's going on. And remember, there haven't been inspectors there in four years. And so commercial satellite imagery has been very important for the public and the inspection agencies to use to try understand what Iraq is doing at it's sensitive military sites.
HOLT: And during the four years that inspectors have been out of Iraq, have those satellite images given a fair amount of information as to where things are and where they're going?
ALBRIGHT: It's very hard to form definitive judgments about anything about Iraq's WMD (ph) programs. But it gives you tips on where you may want to look when you can get back into the country. It's not conclusive evidence, by any means, but you're trying to find tips that allow you to focus some of your inspection efforts, and so you would want to look at those buildings.
HOLT: I want to put up another image if we can. It's of what is a suspected nuclear facility of some kind. I believe it's in Tuwaitha (ph) is the name of the location. It shows new construction. Has that been one of the things that has put the inspectors on the course that they're now on, looking at those spots that have been under construction?
ALBRIGHT: They'll certainly visit Tuwaitha. I mean Tuwaitha was the central facility for Iraq's nuclear program for many years and from which the nuclear weapons program dispersed around the country. And so any activity at Tuwaitha that's new is going to be looked at very closely to ensure that these nuclear scientists that remain there are not trying to do anything that's banned.
HOLT: And I think we have a photo of 1991 of that same facility when it was struck by allied bombers. It shows the various buildings that were destroyed. When you encounter those kinds of places that were destroyed during the war, did you ever really know what was there? Or did you have to take it on the intelligence that the U.S. gave you?
ALBRIGHT: Well, a lot was learned by interviewing Iraqis. One of the things that's interesting about that photo was that that kind of photo was not available to the International Atomic Energy Agency prior to the Gulf War or the public. And that photo, if seen by the public, could have very well led to much more pressure to intensify the inspections on Iraq in the late 1980's and led to uncovering the program earlier."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021121-msnbc-sat-iraq01.htm

There WAS NO 'program'.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.com
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Saudi king accuses UK of ignoring tip-off which could have stopped London bombings

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has attacked Britain's record on terrorism - and accused the Government of ignoring a tip-off which may have averted the 2005 London bombings.

In an astonishing attack, the monarch claimed his country had passed on information that could have stopped the atrocity but it was ignored.

The King's outspoken comments were made in a BBC interview ahead of a state visit to the UK this week.

Scroll down for more ...

Controversy: King Abdullah has attacked the UK's record on terrorism

His presence in the country is already mired in controversy with protestors planning mass demonstrations and Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable boycotting an official function.

In a scathing critique of the ongoing battle against terrorism, King Abdullah said the fight needed much more effort by countries such as Britain and that al Qaida continued to be a big problem for his country.

"We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

Liberal Democrat acting leader Vince Cable yesterday took the highly unusual step of announcing that he would be boycotting a visit which, he said, should not be taking place.

It also emerged today that Foreign Secretary David Miliband has pulled out of a meeting with Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud.

But his decision was nothing to do with the controversial visit as he has gone on leave after he and his wife Louise adopted a new baby.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490339&in_page_id=1770

We are all over Syria now in a "Collin Powell" style and that is not the issue. What the building was is speculation, drama, and theatrics. Syria could have an underground facility and this was just a decoy. The issues is not what was the facility, it is that one country (Israel) sent its fighter jets into another country (Syria) and blew up a building of some sort. That, in most eyes, qualifies as war, doesn't it. Imagine the opposite. Syria sends its jets into Israeli airspace and blow up some chemical facility. We will still be all over Syria and not the nature of the chamical facility. I challenge Mr. Arkin to analyze relevant international law to give us his judgment on the legality of what Israel did.

If this was an operative enrichment facility and it was hit by the Israeli (or any) bombs, there should be remnant traces of the plutonium readily detectable with modern equipment. If it was a putative facility, then there should be intelligence of movement of equipment appropriate to such uses into the area. Our intelligence should have this evidence without relying on other government sources.

For real uncensored bull nuggets, please bookmark:

www.stalinwasagreatguy.com