Adm Fallon Fired - Where Can I Bet that War with Iran Coming?

[ritehook]

While it is being said he "resigned," that just military protocol - the Admiral, who long has been in open opposition to NeoCon plans to bomb Iran, WAS FIRED!

Supposedly as a result of an article about him in Esquire magazine (is that old relic still around?)as being the voice of reason and against a war on Iran.

That Def Sec Gates says his dismissal doesn't mean the US is soon going to war on Iran, means only that, like most member of the Bush/Cheney regime, he is simply a Liar for Hire.

A credible scenario to sweep McCain (the new hero of the traitorous Neocons) into the White House: sometime between, say, July and Sept (or maybe a tad earlier), the Cheney Propaganda Machine invents a "Tonkin Gulf" incident and blames Iran for the "outrage."

The Moron then goes on TV to sonorously declare war on Iran - the Constitution is dead anyway, his word is good enough. And in a new paroxysm of blind "patriotism" the voting sheep flock to the polls in November to elect a new savior in the "war on terror."

My only question: are there any books out there (A to C only) offering odds of any kind that the US will or will not war with Iran this year?

Y'all know how I'll be bettin'.

[coldhardfacts]

Just because someone disagrees with you they're "traitorous"???? Maybe they're just WRONG. Or maybe you're just wrong.

Anyway, a good gambler never lets emotions interfere with
his play. Something you're obviously incapable of in this situation. Just watch CNN and keep your money in your pocket.

[ritehook]

Fallon has on a number or occasions over the last few years that he has been head of CentCom (the overall commander of all troops in the Persian Gulf)stated there is no reason for military action against Iran.

That is directly contrary to what Cheney and his Neocons want. They want a war with Iran, to benefit You-Know-Who.

Odd is seems that they would take this precise opportunity to can the admiral. (Altho most high-ranking US brass also oppose military action against Iran, Fallon was the outspoken one. His sucessor will likely be more "co-operative.)

Something brewing. Paranoia? Maybe. Too bad we didn't have more paranoia when the Neocons were slinging about their lying propaganda about Iraq's ties to Bin Laden, or his arsenal of WMDs.

Paranoia is self-preservative when dealing with Neocons.

[coldhardfacts]

Fallon has on a number or occasions over the last few years that he has been head of CentCom (the overall commander of all troops in the Persian Gulf)stated there is no reason for military action against Iran.

That is directly contrary to what Cheney and his Neocons want. They want a war with Iran, to benefit You-Know-Who.

Odd is seems that they would take this precise opportunity to can the admiral. (Altho most high-ranking US brass also oppose military action against Iran, Fallon was the outspoken one. His sucessor will likely be more "co-operative.)

Something brewing. Paranoia? Maybe. Too bad we didn't have more paranoia when the Neocons were slinging about their lying propaganda about Iraq's ties to Bin Laden, or his arsenal of WMDs.

Paranoia is self-preservative when dealing with Neocons.

Actually, I don't know who. I do know that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire middle east, and thus, the world.

[ritehook]

Just because someone disagrees with you they're "traitorous"???? Maybe they're just WRONG. Or maybe you're just wrong.

Anyway, a good gambler never lets emotions interfere with
his play. Something you're obviously incapable of in this situation. Just watch CNN and keep your money in your pocket.

I'd need nice plus odds to make the bet, obviously.

Neocons are mainly members of one ethnicity, loyal to one country. (Not this one.) If you've examned the evidence and have come to a different conclusion I'd estimate you a careless handicapper.

[coldhardfacts]

I'd need nice plus odds to make the bet, obviously.

Neocons are mainly members of one ethnicity, loyal to one country. (Not this one.) If you've examned the evidence and have come to a different conclusion I'd estimate you a careless handicapper.

I'm lost. Cheney and McCain are what, WASP? Scotch-Irish? Bush is a WASP I think?

[thegreatdiatchi]

While I still think that there are alot of dumb Americans I think most of us get the point that this "war on terror" is bullshit. The value of most of our incomes is crap and the fact that alot of people can't afford healthcare plays heavily into the cards. The election will be interesting and it might be close but I don't see it being as close as the last 2 elections. Obama or Hillary should win decisively.

[coldhardfacts]

While I still think that there are alot of dumb Americans I think most of us get the point that this "war on terror" is bullshit. The value of most of our incomes is crap and the fact that alot of people can't afford healthcare plays heavily into the cards. The election will be interesting and it might be close but I don't see it being as close as the last 2 elections. Obama or Hillary should win decisively.

Well, I guess Hillary and Obama are two "dumbAmericans" who don't buy into your initial premise. Neither do the friends and relatives of about 3,000 people who lost loved ones about 6 1/2 years ago.

[ritehook]

Actually, I don't know who. I do know that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire middle east, and thus, the world.

Tnat's what the brain-dead reactionaries were saying about China in the early 1960s. Some US politicians were pressing to bomb the Chinese nuclear plant then.

There is zero evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons. As a signee of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they do have the right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

But I wouldn't hold it against Iran if they did want nukes. Their hostile and warlike neighbor, Israel, has an estimated 200-400 nuke warheads. Every country has a right to defend itself.

In 1996 American neocons who later became potent players in the regime of The Moron published a paper for a rightist israeli politician, named Netanyahu.

It started by saying that Saddam should be eliminated. It also stated that Syria and Iran should be in the crosshairs.

Not for the benefit of the US.

It's on the Net. The report is called SECURING THE REALM.
And, no, the realm they were talking of is not the U.S. We supply the bombs and the dead soldiers, they supply the plans and the rhetoric. Such a deal!

Get the report, then google the authors of the report.

If you are a handicapper, you can reach only one conclusion.

[ritehook]

The actual 1996 report is titled "A CLEAN BREAK." Securing the Realm is the subtitle.

I knew a guy when I was a kid who was a fervent Irish nationalist. A long-time citizen of the US, he kept his membership in the IRA.

I thought it odd that he would prefer to live here rather than the Auld Sod. But at leasst he just shot him mouth off in bars and poolrooms.

He didn't have the ear of presidents.

One of the authors of this strategy report for Israel is a guy named Richard Perle. Never heard of him, bunkie? Google him and check his relationship with The Moron. Puppetmaster to puppet.

Another author of Clean Break is Douglas Feith. Another "American" neocon, with a huge part to play in the run-up to the calamitous war in Iraq.

But then again, who really gives a shit about 4000 stone dead Americans when it comes to saving the ass of You Know Who. Hells bells, if it takes the lives of 4 million Americans for that noble cause, by all means let's do it!

Yep, I'd say war with Iran is pending. McCain needs it to have a chance. Certainly worth a bet at odds.

[coldhardfacts]

Tnat's what the brain-dead reactionaries were saying about China in the early 1960s. Some US politicians were pressing to bomb the Chinese nuclear plant then.

There is zero evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons. As a signee of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they do have the right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

But I wouldn't hold it against Iran if they did want nukes. Their hostile and warlike neighbor, Israel, has an estimated 200-400 nuke warheads. Every country has a right to defend itself.

In 1996 American neocons who later became potent players in the regime of The Moron published a paper for a rightist israeli politician, named Netanyahu.

It started by saying that Saddam should be eliminated. It also stated that Syria and Iran should be in the crosshairs.

Not for the benefit of the US.

It's on the Net. The report is called SECURING THE REALM.
And, no, the realm they were talking of is not the U.S. We supply the bombs and the dead soldiers, they supply the plans and the rhetoric. Such a deal!

Get the report, then google the authors of the report.

If you are a handicapper, you can reach only one conclusion.

In the first place, as far as I know Israel has never threatened Iran with extinction. The opposite is not true. Iran funds terrorist organizations that bomb Israel daily.

In the second place, if Israel does have nuclear weapons, why do they need us to take out Iran?

In the third place, Israel aside, a nuclear Iran basically would have carte blanche to extend their influence throughout the oil rich middle east, threatening all of the Sunni Governments in the area. If they were to dominate Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc., this fundamentalist Shiite government would instantly control a significant portion of the world's resources and become an economic, and eventually superpower.

In the fourth place, are you saying that Bush, Cheney, McCain, et. al are traitors who don't feel they are acting in our country's best interest?

I certainly don't favor a war with Iran, but I can understand how it's definitely in our interests to prevent them from going nuclear. I'm afraid the only way to reach the conclusion you've arrived at is if you're, as you put it, paranoid.

[Scorpion]

Yep, I'd say war with Iran is pending. McCain needs it to have a chance. Certainly worth a bet at odds.

If this happens, I think W can declare marshal law and stop the election!

[ritehook]

If this happens, I think W can declare marshal law and stop the election!

Certainly not an off-the-wall scenario. Tho I think it more likely that Bush, Cheney and the other frontmen for the neocons will simply get the country again into a war hysteria, like at the opening round of the Iraq debacle.

With Bush stating that only Boots on the Ground Johnny McCain can save us.

Remember, NO ONE EVER LOST MONEY UNDERESTIMATING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

[ritehook]

I do want to state publicly that I do not know poster coldhardfacts. (I don't know any posters here.)

I say that because he has pitched me some softballs, easy to hit out of the park! Which I'll take a shot at manana, or the day after. Have to go out for the rest of the evening.

No, actually, chf, I respect honest disagreement and debate. I try never to stoop to personal attacks.

Just one thing, re my use of the loaded word "traitorous."

Yeah, if someone acts in the interests of another country to the disadvantage of his own, I would put that label on him. Even if the other country is a "friend." An old political maxim has it that a nation has no friends, only interests.

And, as a contemporary of Shakespeare wrote:

"Treason Doth Never Prosper - What's The Reason?

For When it Prospers, None Dare Call it Treason!"

[SSLP]

Ur freaking sick... betting on a WAR?
arent there enough stupid wagers for squares out there?

You dont bet on babies getting killed or nor , or a whole country going homeless.

You hope that doesnt happen.


I guess your just one of those degenarates..

[isetcap]

If there is an agenda against terrorism then action against Syria should be the top priority and should have been our second stop in that region after disposing of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Despite the propaganda, Iran has neither the resources nor the extremist desire to remain confrontational in the face of international rebuke.

Although some parts of the media like to paint his resignation strictly as a result of his anti-administration policy towards Iran, that simply is not the case. If the administration had truly wanted conflict with Iran, it would have done so despite the opinion of Admiral Fallon in the same way they proceeded with the surge in Iraq. It was his anti-administration position towards the surge strategy when he was implemented in March 2007 that left him virtually powerless. He was betting the surge would not yield the positive results the administration was looking for and his bet lost. Now he gets to step down.

For those people who would like to get a little closer to the story as opposed to wallowing in revisionist history, consider reading this September 12, 2007 article by IPS, U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge

[ritehook]

In the first place, as far as I know Israel has never threatened Iran with extinction. The opposite is not true. Iran funds terrorist organizations that bomb Israel daily.

In the second place, if Israel does have nuclear weapons, why do they need us to take out Iran?

In the third place, Israel aside, a nuclear Iran basically would have carte blanche to extend their influence throughout the oil rich middle east, threatening all of the Sunni Governments in the area. If they were to dominate Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc., this fundamentalist Shiite government would instantly control a significant portion of the world's resources and become an economic, and eventually superpower.

In the fourth place, are you saying that Bush, Cheney, McCain, et. al are traitors who don't feel they are acting in our country's best interest?

I certainly don't favor a war with Iran, but I can understand how it's definitely in our interests to prevent them from going nuclear. I'm afraid the only way to reach the conclusion you've arrived at is if you're, as you put it, paranoid.

chf, I dont have time right now to reply to all your points - like just about everyone else I'm tryin' to get my sh-t together for The Dance.

But let me take a minute to respond to point # 1. You say, in effect, that Iran has threatened Israel with extinction.

You read that in the kept American press. Would ypu believe a tout who claimed 80% wins over the course of a season? No, you are an intelligent person who "handicaps" a situation; and so you would shake your head and laugh at the tout, and pity the poor suckers who believed him.

The US media is "free" only in a very limited sense. It has masters it must answer to. It's total hypocrisy on the race issue, discussed in another thread, is a prime example.

I assume you are tallking about the alleged statement the Pres of Iran, Admadinajah, made, supposedly to the effect that Israel will be wiped of the map.

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but the guy never said any such thing. Yes, it was so reported in the press. (The same press that takes ads from touts?)

ADJ was quoting Khomeini, the spiritiaul leader of the Iranian Revolution, which deposed the bloody Shah of Iran, a psychotic killer tht the CIA put on the Peacock Throne. (google it)


But neither Khomeini nor the current Iranian president ever said "wiped off the map." It was more like that the regime in Tel Aviv "will disappear from the pages of history."

IE, that the state there would one day be open to all citizens, on an equal footing, not just ruled by a master race of one ethnicity.

Similar statesments were made for years by black activists in South Africa against that apartheid regime. And supported by the USA.

The black activist there were not suggesting that S Africa be destroyed. Only that there be power-sharing amongst all iits citizens.

During the Cold War many a preacher and politiician said the same about the Soviet Union, that it will one day disappear, because it was cruel and unjust. They did not mean that the country would be nuked into a radioactive desert.

OK, you want proof. Hit this website, mainitained by Prof Juan Cole, of the Univ of Michigan. He is expert on the MidEast and very fluent in Farsi, the language of Iran.

A translaton of ADJ remarks, preciseely, are on that page. Nothing aobut "wiping out," nothing about "map."

Cole himself is a bitter opponent of the current regime ruling Iran. But he is not a liar.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

[ritehook]

Part of the problem with the "face of the map" quote is that some hothead or dunce in the Iranian News Agency originally translated that story into English, with the "map" reference.

Then, the NY Times used the quote, and it was then picked up by other news media.

But Farsi speakers who read the true text knew that is was mis-translated. But by then their voices were drowned out; it had taken on a life of it's own, an became a potent weapon for The Lobby.

It is now engraved, as it were, in stone. To be slammed over the head of the docile and believing American sheep.

To me, it's a matter of personal pride that I don't let myself by conned by scam merchants. And I don't give a sh-t what they're sellinng, or what kind of tale they are telling.

IF IT looks like shit, if it smells like shit, and if you can slip on it and break your neck --- then, brother, IT'S SHIT!

"HE WANTS TO DESTORY ISRAEL!"

"I HIT 80% WINNERS IN COLEGE HOOPS THIS SEASON!"

Everybody to their own flavor of caca. I'll pass on all the flavors, thank you very much!

[ritehook]

Ur freaking sick... betting on a WAR?
arent there enough stupid wagers for squares out there?

You dont bet on babies getting killed or nor , or a whole country going homeless.

You hope that doesnt happen.


I guess your just one of those degenarates..

Actually, one of the great banking firms of Europe made their bones by doing just that, betting on wars.

Their US representative are not shunned, but rather invited as honored guests by the most politically powerful in the land.

If I can find a book or exchange to take the bet (at minimum odds) sure I'lll make the bet. But it's one of the rare ones I'll make where I'll root against myself winning.

And, far worse than betting on a war is waging one for the of benefit of an entity that you do not belong to. See the "nonE
dare call it treason quote" above.

And to again quote the last decent US journalist, Mencken (and of course, sportsgirl): NOBODY EVER LOST MONEY UNDER-ESTIMATING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[ritehook]

n the second place, if Israel does have nuclear weapons, why do they need us to take out Iran?

This is your second point, coldhardfacts. Sorry to reply piecemeal, but like most of us right around now most of free time is taken up with tryin' out our dancin' shoes.

Isreal absolutely has nukes, had 'em for years. Don't think anyone disputes this. A righteous Israeli named Mordecai Vananu, who had worked on the Israeli nuclear program, exposed the fact some years ago. (And Israel,if I recall rightly, imprisioned him for decades as a result.)

Israel wants to "take out" Iran because they want to be the sole power in that area to hold the Nuclear Cards. Is that difficult to understand?

We've had nuclear weapons since the mid-1940s, but still nearly went to war with the Soviets in the early '60s when they moved missiles into their satellite, Cuba.

If Iran or another Islamic state in that area had nukes than any nuclear blackmail by Isreal would be diluted.

When India stopped worrying and Got the Bomb, then their enemy Pakistan had to get it also,. MAD, it's called. Mutual Assured Destruction.

Worked for Russia and the US, Russian and China, China and the US, etc.

Should also work for Israel and Iran or any other ME Islamic country there that joins the nuclear club.

[ritehook]

In the third place, Israel aside, a nuclear Iran basically would have carte blanche to extend their influence throughout the oil rich middle east, threatening all of the Sunni Governments in the area. If they were to dominate Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc., this fundamentalist Shiite government would instantly control a significant portion of the world's resources and become an economic, and eventually superpower.

In the fourth place, are you saying that Bush, Cheney, McCain, et. al are traitors who don't feel they are acting in our country's best interest?

I certainly don't favor a war with Iran, but I can understand how it's definitely in our interests to prevent them from going nuclear. I'm afraid the only way to reach the conclusion you've arrived at is if you're, as you put it, paranoid.


The above are points 3 and 4 from coldhardfacts.

And as I'll rarely let any serious attempt to refute go unanswered I'm gonna be a painintheass and take valuable space in the time precededing The Start of the Dance to reply

After that, I'm shutting up. And will not likely be on this forum much until maybe football - or unless the Puppet of the Neos bombs Iran, I'll return just to say "told ya so."

Iran has not attacked another country for a long, long time, (Unlike the US) The bloody '80s war with Iraq was instigated by Saddam Hussein. (A bad guy, but no worse than our ally Mubarak in Egypt, and a number of other rotten apples who are our "allies" in this grim world.)

Israel has nuclear weapons. You are the only one I've ever heard of to doubt that. When one nation alone has nukes, that is when danger of domination enters the picture.

Israel is clearly the 800 lb gorilla in the Mideast, with its arsenal of nukes, and the 4th largest army in the world. As well as having the best war equipment (much of it purchesed with the 3-4 billion they get from Uncle Sucker).

There is zero proof that Iran is plotting to get nuclear weapons. But it would not be a disaster if they did. When India got nukes their traditional adversary, Pakistan, also felt the need for them,.

Note there has not been a nuke exchange between India and Pakistan. Nor was there was in the almost 50 years of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union,

The doctrine is called MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction.,'

I believe a counterweight to Israel is needed in the ME. A nuclear counterweight. Israel is really a state like South Africa was, practicing apartheid, brutalizing its Arabic citizens, acting as if some bogus "promises" made by a trribal volcano god 3000 years ago should be put into practice in the modern world, and influencing the poltroons and traitors who dominate the US govt.

Iran with nuclear weapons would hardly dominate the region. Israel and the US would be a strong counterweight. CHF, sounds like you've been listening too much to the Fat Man. Is he still on oxycotin?

Many Amrerican Jews do not go along with the Zionist program, and with wars perpetrated by the pro-Israeli contingent in this country.

When I was in New York in th run-up to the invasion of Iraq there was a huge peace assembly; many of the participants were ethnic Jews.

The authors of The Israeli Lobby are ethnic Jews. That book, by the way, hit the NY Times best-seller list for a few weeks last year.

The best web site on war and plans for war is anti-war.com.
Some of the best investigators on that site are ethnic Jews.

Even here, one of the forum stars, JJ Gold, has posted a few things that indicate that he believes that Israel is behind most of the warmongering in the ME.

However, part-Jewish former general and prez candidate, Wesley Clark, has stated that "the big New York money is heavy for Israel." He meant super-rich Jews solidly behind the Zionist agenda, which fundamentally is an anti-american agenda.

4- Bush is unconscious, possibly the weirdest president the country has ever had. Akin to the kind of emperors that showed up when old Rome was on its deathbed.

Cheney is the conduit to Bush for neocon propaganda and aims. They desperately want the US to attack Iran. Just as they pushed and lied their way into getting the US to attack Iraq for Israeli influence, (Read the essay by Walt and Mearsheimner, THE ISRAELI LOBBY - it was the essay that became the book, and it's on the Net.)

Any nation that allows itself to be used as a catspaw for the foreign policy of another deserves to perish. And will, unless there is a dramatic reversal, and a severe punishment for the melefactors,

Obviously, no one - certainly not I - can be 100 % sure that the US will trick the people once more into a war not in our vital interests. Cheney would love it, but Gates and others are now in positions to oppose.

I don't know about McCain. He talks like he wants "boots on the ground" all over the world, in perpetuity. I do know he is the fave candidate of the neocons, now that Rudy is gone.

There is, in my view, a 50-50 chance of the US attacking Iran, after some fake "Tonikin Gulf" incident is fabricated. And my belief is that the bombs we drop on Tehran will come back to us airmail, multiplied a thousandfold.

Amen. Back to hoops,.

[BigBollocks]

Every major news channel in the US is run by a Jewish person, as are most of the major newspapers, as well as the BBC. What do you think the average idiot is going to be led to believe?

On top of this, a great deal of the driving influence behind Iraq was Jewish led. Wolfowitz even gave Iraq War allies high ranking positions with the World Bank.

I colloborate with and am friends with many, many Jewish people who I love to death (the town I grew up in was actually called "Little Israel" lol), but make no mistake that the Jews run this country through and through. This won't change either. Clinton's biggest investor has said before that he's "a one issue man, and that issue is the well being of Israel." McCain's stopping through London for an event put on by the famous Rothschild's of London. That's right, the most powerful banking family in England (who so happen to be Jewish and have contributed hundreds of millions to Israeli causes). The Jews have and will run this country until the day we're extinct, and can paint whomever they wish in the worst way possible knowing that everyone will follow right along.

[ritehook]

In fundamental agreement with what bb has stated, above.

In fact, if you are over 30 and do not yet realize this basic fact of American life you are simply not, and never will be, a "handicapper" of history.

Jewish nationalists act in their own interests. It has little to do with religion. Most of those I've known in my life who called themselves "Jews" had no religion. It's more of a People, Tribe, Ethnicity, Culture, etc thing.

I don't blame wealthy or self-conscious Jews for acting in thier own interests, having an "Israel Uber Alles" mentality.
Wish those who (mis)lead the USA did likewise. (IE, put US interests first)

There are, as noted, a number of anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations: American Council for Judaism; Tikkum; Mr A. Lillenthal; a number of strict orthodox groups, who often demonstrate at Israeli embassies with Palestinians, et al.. Even a few who were so aggrieved by Israel's warmongering and oppression that they publicly renounced thier so-called Right of Return.

Perhaps some of these groups and individuals realize that even nations steeped in tolerance and individualism can run out of patience. Tolerant England twice expelled its Jews, the king caving to demands by both the people and the nobles.

An ominous and usually overlooked factor of modern America is the increasing alienation of the military officer cate. The military is often the last repository of national honor, and it's no surprise that many of its officers -active and retired - saw thru the scam and opposed the war with Iraq and the neocon-desired war with Iran. Like Adm Fallon. And Gen Zinni.

Another neocon-infliuenced admi or two could have a us seeing a real live "Seven Days in May" scenario on the banks of the Potomac.

[Scorpion]

Every major news channel in the US is run by a Jewish person, as are most of the major newspapers, as well as the BBC. What do you think the average idiot is going to be led to believe?

On top of this, a great deal of the driving influence behind Iraq was Jewish led. Wolfowitz even gave Iraq War allies high ranking positions with the World Bank.

I colloborate with and am friends with many, many Jewish people who I love to death (the town I grew up in was actually called "Little Israel" lol), but make no mistake that the Jews run this country through and through. This won't change either. Clinton's biggest investor has said before that he's "a one issue man, and that issue is the well being of Israel." McCain's stopping through London for an event put on by the famous Rothschild's of London. That's right, the most powerful banking family in England (who so happen to be Jewish and have contributed hundreds of millions to Israeli causes). The Jews have and will run this country until the day we're extinct, and can paint whomever they wish in the worst way possible knowing that everyone will follow right along.

Very true! Sharp post!