For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Sep 19, 2005 Posts: 1113 Location: OR, USA
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: Ron Paul: Expect a Gulf of Tonkin type incident
Quote:
Americans beware of the Bush administration's attempts to trump up some BS reason to attack Iran. Iran is a 3rd world country with a frail military and remains a decade away from a nuclear weapon -- if it's even building one.
He also points out that having Israel do it will, strategically and ethically, mean that we will be held culpable...
Joined: Oct 23, 2004 Posts: 5487 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: Ron Paul: Expect a Gulf of Tonkin type incident
I think the recent reported abduction of Iranian consulate officials, and the less reported but failed attempt to capture more Iranians in a Kurdish-controlled airport, is part of a broader plan to show that Iran is an enemy of the US. I expect we will hear more of this at the President's State of the Union address.
There are some legal experts who think, that since the US Congress voted to have designated Iran as a terrorist state, the President can start military actions against Iran at any time. Not that I agree with that, but what would the present Congress do if given 'evidence' of Iran's terrorist activities?
Quote:
Iraq Foreign Minister Calls on U.S.
To Release Five Captured Iranians
Associated Press
January 14, 2007 3:01 p.m.
BAGHDAD -- Iraq's foreign minister called Sunday for the release of five Iranians who were taken into custody by U.S. forces at what the minister said was a legitimate Iranian facility in northern Iraq.
But minister also warned that foreign intervention to help insurgents wouldn't be tolerated. The twin-pronged statement by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari shows the delicate balance facing the Iraqi government as it tries to secure Baghdad with the help of U.S. forces while maintaining ties with its neighbors, including Iran and Syria.
"Any interventions -- or any harmful interventions to kill Iraqis or to provide support for insurgency or for the insurgents -- should be stopped by the Iraqi government and by the coalition forces," Mr. Zebari said on CNN's "Late Edition."
AP/Wall Street Journal _________________ It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: Ron Paul Warns Of Iranian False Flag Operations
"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 1741 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: Re: Ron Paul Warns Of Iranian False Flag Operations
Good to hear that some politicians still have spine enough to speak up. And Ron does is consistently. So good on him.
Heard that he is going to try to run for president as a
Republican candidate.
Good luck but I think he picked the worst possible timing.
Republicans are not going to be popular with the common people and an honest politician like Ron Paul in not going to be popular with either the corporations nor the rest of the republican party.
Finally, I think the US is in such a mess that I wonder if even Ron Paul is goint to be able to do anything significant even if he becomes president. Especially as the medicin is very bitter. _________________ Lets take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
You cant hide, run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
- Pet Shop Boys
Joined: Oct 23, 2004 Posts: 5487 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Ron Paul: Expect a Gulf of Tonkin type incident
Perhaps we don't even need a Gulf of Tonkin incident, when we have 'accidents'.
What would have happened if this was an Iranian tanker (or maybe they thought it was)? Or just a 'subtle' warning not to buy Iranian oil?
Quote:
BBC International Reports (Middle East)
BBC Monitoring Service
January 14, 2007
Iran Press: Navy commander blames US sub for collision with Japanese tanker
Text of report by Iranian daily newspaper Farhang-e Ashti website on 13 January
Rear Admiral Sajjad-Kucheki, speaking in an interview given to Fars News Agency about the collision of the American submarine with a Japanese vessel, said: The submarine which is named "Newport News" [punctuation as published here and throughout] and is in the Eisenhower Carrier battle group collided with a Japanese super tanker named Mogamigawa at 15:22 hours on 18 Dey [08 January] east of the Strait of Hormoz. According to his statement, the submarine's commander is Captain Matti Wingar [phonetic, not traced] and his second-in-command is Nicolas Tipler [phonetic, not traced]. The submarine is of the type SSN057.
The Japanese tanker was heading towards Singapore. It had a crew of 24 while the submarine's crew are reported to be between 127 and 130.
Explaining the way the collision had occurred, the army's navy commander said: The submarine was submerged and was trying to surface. As a result of its failure to observe the guidelines for surfacing which require that there should be no vessels in its vicinity for a radius of one kilometre, the submarine's bow collided with the Japanese tanker's stern.
Admiral Kucheki went on to say: According to reports, the Japanese vessel's crew heard an enormous bang that was caused by the collision of the American submarine that was surfacing at great speed. The damage to the tanker is such that more than 4,000 tonnes of water have entered the Japanese vessel. America, meanwhile, has failed to report any casualties or the consequences of the collision, thus endeavouring to conceal the results and casualties of the accident so that the consequent adverse effects on the environment do not become clear.
According to him, the spread of oil and nuclear products is one of the consequences of the collision. That is because the American nuclear submarine had been damaged to such an extent that it was taken at night by two vessels to the coastal area of one of the Persian Gulf regional states. The Japanese vessel, meanwhile, is having an adverse effect on the region's environment because of the hole in its side and the ingress of more than 4,000 tonnes of water into the vessel. That is why America is making efforts to keep the regional state uninformed about those consequences.
The army's navy commander stressed that in this incident the submarine was definitely to blame and the crew along with the commander had committed a definite error.
Source: Farhang-e Ashti website, Tehran in Persian 13 Jan 07
_________________ It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 488 Location: New Northwest Union
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Ron Paul: Expect a Gulf of Tonkin type incident
Ron Paul is being endorsed by Aaron Russo for president, so maybe, just maybe he might be worth looking at a little more closely... _________________ “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” George W. Bush
So I presume he has the same attitude about Iran, so I sort of wonder why he would need a false flag operation. Who is going to refuse to obey his orders anyway? And you know the slugs in Congress are not going to impeach him.
So I presume he has the same attitude about Iran, so I sort of wonder why he would need a false flag operation. Who is going to refuse to obey his orders anyway? And you know the slugs in Congress are not going to impeach him.
I basically agree. Besides Congress has already passed a series of laws giving GWB the authority to take action against Iran.
Ron Paul is notably one of the few who were against this.
The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance", yet allows the president to introduce Armed Forces into hostilities without Congressional authorization; it simply compels him to terminate hostilities within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. This is enough time for GWB to start - and sometimes finish - actions, like we recently saw in East Africa.
Last year another bill was passed - HR 282. H.R. 282 is not exactly a declaration of war aginst Iran. It appears to give authority to impose sanctions not only on Iran, but on companies and countries helping build the energy infrastructure in Iran - such as China and Russia. In addition to that, GWB probably believes he has more than adequate authority to attack Iran because of various federal laws and findings (whether he legally does or not is another matter).
Quote:
CQ Weekly
Congressional Quarterly
March 18, 2006
Bill Targets Oil Investments in Iran
By Eleanor Stables, CQ Staff
The United States would impose sanctions on foreign companies and countries that do business with Iran's oil industry as long as Iran is suspected of seeking nuclear weapons, under a bill approved by a House panel last week.
The International Relations Committee's vote on the Iran sanctions bill (HR 282) was 37-3, with Republicans Jim Leach of Iowa and Ron Paul of Texas and Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregon voting no.
Bill sponsor Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said she hoped the measure would provide leverage for cooperation from allies who "claim to be concerned about the growing Iranian threat but who continue to invest billions in Iran's energy sector," as well as nuclear and missile programs. The measure has about 350 Democratic and Republican cosponsors.
The bill would impose sanctions against foreign companies and countries that invest more than $20 million in Iran's petroleum industry. The sanctions would remain in effect until the president certified to Congress that Iran had dismantled any program to build weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions could still be imposed on Iran for its state sponsorship of terrorism.
[Source: CQ Weekly] _________________ It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Ron Paul Warns Of Iranian False Flag Operations
DantesPeak wrote:
It appears to give authority to impose sanctions not only on Iran, but on companies and countries helping build the energy infrastructure in Iran - such as China and Russia.
I wonder if that includes Halliburton's off-shore subsidiaries who have been doing business with Iran for years. _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
