[PacHead]

That letter that was written from the lunatic president of Iran to George Bush is not just your normal letter, it's a declaration of war.

"Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path.

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels

Iran Declares War
http://www.nysun.com/article/32594 (the full article needs a subscription)

Here's what the disgusting president of Iran had to say about the letter:

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line...0155191821.htm

And meanwhile, the Hitleresque, suicidal leader of Iran is a big hit among 'moderate' Muslims in Indonesia.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...le_15556.shtml

[Spliffdaddy]

finally.

I was wondering when we could officially kick Iran's ass.

Send in the nukes.

Next time somebody wants to declare war on the US, they'll know what to expect.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

finally.

I was wondering when we could officially kick Iran's ass.

Unfortunately, there will still probably be a whole lot of useless time spent at the UN while the foreign knuckleheads and friends of terrorists waste time trying to avoid the inevitable.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well yeah. The UN has to figure out a scheme to make some loot.

[SpaceMonkey]

It's no more a declaration of war than Bush's "axis of evil speech" was a declaration of war.

[vmarks]

Oh, I'm not sure. A parliament that closes its sessions with "Death to America!" and an invitation to convert to Islam in a tradition that historically follows a refusal to convert with warfare? I think Ahmadinejad knows exactly what he's doing.

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.p...g/entry/20301/ is a good opinion on the matter.

[SpaceMonkey]

So then they've already declared war multiple times, making the statement insignificant--or as one of the comments to the blog entry you posted put it, it would be a "reiteration of jihad."

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

finally.

I was wondering when we could officially kick Iran's ass.

Send in the nukes.

Next time somebody wants to declare war on the US, they'll know what to expect.

Wouldn't it be nice to fight wars the old-fashioned way, when you didn't feel the need to rebuild what you had turned to rubble? I am not sure. All I know is that somebody in Washington has a lot more patience than I do.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Tuoder

Wouldn't it be nice to fight wars the old-fashioned way, when you didn't feel the need to rebuild what you had turned to rubble? I am not sure. All I know is that somebody in Washington has a lot more patience than I do.

then how would they make money?

the cost of the bombs only goes so far... they need long term income.

how a look through this, it's not long, written by a US Marine who was awarded the Medal of Honour, twice.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Next time somebody wants to declare war on the US, they'll know what to expect.

Spinning the bottle and attacking a random country?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well yeah. The UN has to figure out a scheme to make some loot.

With the U.S. leading the charge.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Spinning the bottle and attacking a random country?

There's many bad countries that need to go down, it doesn't matter which ones the USA starts with.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

With the U.S. leading the charge.

Not true, most of the people and countries profiting from the oil for food scandal in Iraq were Russian crooks, French crooks, Chinese crooks, UN crooks etc.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Tuoder

Wouldn't it be nice to fight wars the old-fashioned way, when you didn't feel the need to rebuild what you had turned to rubble? I am not sure. All I know is that somebody in Washington has a lot more patience than I do.

The USA has no obligation to rebuild enemy countries that get destroyed. If the people have to live in rubble for the next century, then so be it. The USA is not the welfare office for the world.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Not true, most of the people and countries profiting from the oil for food scandal in Iraq were Russian crooks, French crooks, Chinese crooks, UN crooks etc.

...working for subsidiaries of U.S. owned major corporations.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

...working for subsidiaries of U.S. owned major corporations.

Link ?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Link ?

There are hundreds. Go Google it.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Oh, I'm not sure. A parliament that closes its sessions with "Death to America!" and an invitation to convert to Islam in a tradition that historically follows a refusal to convert with warfare? I think Ahmadinejad knows exactly what he's doing.

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.p...g/entry/20301/ is a good opinion on the matter.

Isn't it really like the Sabres singing 'God bless america' instead of the US national anthlem when playing the sens the other night? ... psychological warfare. (ps. the sens won.)

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, Iran doesn't have nukes that can reach the USA.

So, it seems that Iran is really Europe's problem to fix.

So go fix it. We'll wait right here for ya.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

It's no more a declaration of war than Bush's "axis of evil speech" was a declaration of war.

Ya you're right neither one is a smart move though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Ya you're right neither one is a smart move though.

I dunno. Did Iran's president say "nucular" or "nuclear"? If it's the latter, they might have one up on us.

[Rumor]

Press the button, nuke Iran, say oops and restation the button presser to Antartica.

[von Wrangell]

Declaring war.

This forum sure is entertaining to read at times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

And the list goes on.....

[analogika]

Originally Posted by PacHead

There's many bad countries that need to go down, it doesn't matter which ones the USA starts with.

Allow me to make a suggestion.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by analogika

Allow me to make a suggestion.

We have a regime change…every four to eight years.

Then maybe you can have a real "dream" president like Al Whore or Hillary Cünton.

[Millennium]

Well, if the president of Iran wants to formally declare a false jihad like this, I suppose it's his prerogative. I do hope, however, that he is prepared to face the consequences of doing so.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Then maybe you can have a real "dream" president like Al Whore or Hillary Cünton.

witty.

color me suitably impressed.

[ink]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

It's no more a declaration of war than Bush's "axis of evil speech" was a declaration of war.

Uhhh... look how that turned out for Iraq.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ink

Uhhh... look how that turned out for Iraq.

So you're saying that Bush has been planning to invade Iran and North Korea from the same time that he planned to invade Iraq?

[itistoday]

You people are insane. Nowhere have I read anything about an official declaration of war. Visit CNN or the BBC and you'll find nothing on the topic.

Iranian President: Peace only to those who follow the true path.

PacHead & Spliffdaddy (in unison): HE DECLARED WAR!! FIRE ZE MISSILES!!!!

I swear, do you people not understand how f*cking stupid you sound?

Here's a hint: It's not a declaration of war unless it's a declaration of war. Otherwise it's just silly rhetoric. As SpaceMonkey pointed out, our president does the same thing (worse actually) all the time, yet you don't see anyone claiming he's declared war on North Korea.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Time to purchase some stocks from the war machine!!

Yiiippeeeeeeeeeee!

[deltacav19]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

finally.

I was wondering when we could officially kick Iran's ass.

Send in the nukes.

Next time somebody wants to declare war on the US, they'll know what to expect.

screw the nukes i just got outta basic
a 19 delta cav scout 3rd cav div.
i want me some forigen ass before they start tactically bombin the place

lol

[abe]

Originally Posted by deltacav19

screw the nukes i just got outta basic
a 19 delta cav scout 3rd cav div.
i want me some forigen ass before they start tactically bombin the place

lol

HEY!

It's the mean green fightin machine!

Good to see ya, man!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Allow me to make a suggestion.

I don't think we can over-throw MacNN

Yeah I know, lame. But so was your post.

[Krusty]

PacHead, you didn't read the actual letter did you ? It's a very far cry from a declaration of war. It is clearly an appeal to their commonality and a chastening of Bush to act like the Christian he pretends to be.

Further, a google search yields absolutely NO support for the assertion that the phrase "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda" is a form of veiled threat or declaration of war. Just a bunch of brand new links that refer to one another and all have their root in the nysun article last week. Can you provide just ONE independent link that corroborates this interpretation that existed prior to the reprint of the letter. If its truly common threat of historical significance to Islam, there must be some sort of reference to it prior to this letter being written, right ??

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Krusty

PacHead, you didn't read the actual letter did you ? It's a very far cry from a declaration of war. It is clearly an appeal to their commonality and a chastening of Bush to act like the Christian he pretends to be.

Further, a google search yields absolutely NO support for the assertion that the phrase "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda" is a form of veiled threat or declaration of war. Just a bunch of brand new links that refer to one another and all have their root in the nysun article last week. Can you provide just ONE independent link that corroborates this interpretation that existed prior to the reprint of the letter. If its truly common threat of historical significance to Islam, there must be some sort of reference to it prior to this letter being written, right ??

The letter is a Da'wa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%27wa

President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam


http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line...0155191821.htm

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The letter is a Da'wa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%27wa

President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam


http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line...0155191821.htm

I saw that when I was doing my search. Neither the definition of a da'wa in wikipedia nor the article about the president's invite to Islam say anything whatsoever regarding that invitation having any sort of threatening overtone nor or being a "declaration of war". In fact, quotes by the President of Iran in your second link clarifies that he did not intend that.

I'm not trying to be snide here, but this sounds like some fabrication somebody made up that was just repeated without question. Basically, an attempt to fake a provocation that doesn't really exist. Iran IS definitely a threat to the US (along with Venezuela, Russia, and China) but not because they are plan on a military attack against us.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Iran IS definitely a threat to the US (along with Venezuela, Russia, and China) but not because they are plan on a military attack against us.

It depends what you mean by military attack. Iran is a joke military-wise, it's not like they're going to invade the USA, however, they have threatened to strike with suicide bombers. Do you remember recently when they said they had 50,000 of them ready to strike ? Europe has more to fear than the USA, because there's many more crazies and al-qaeda people living in Europe.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Krusty

It is clearly an appeal to their commonality and a chastening of Bush to act like the Christian he pretends to be.

And the Muslim that the president of Iran pretends to be?

Very tollerant to non muslims he is?

[niceguy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

finally.

Send in the nukes.

Oh, goody.

*nukes popcorn*

[deltacav19]

well, abe might get my chance shippin out in 4 months to al kattar i think its called or something like that

[abe]

Originally Posted by deltacav19

well, abe might get my chance shippin out in 4 months to al kattar i think its called or something like that

So how was basic? Any good stories?

[abe]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=22527

Symposium: Iran: To Strike or Not to Strike?
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 19, 2006


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's18-page letter to President Bush has confirmed, among other things, one highly disturbing reality: Iran will continue chasing its nuclear program -- and to dismiss the West’s warnings to desist from such behavior. More toubling still: just recently, a top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, threatened that Israel would be Iran's first target in response to any U.S. attack. This threat is especially worrisome in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's expressed yearning for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

The U.S., Britain and France are circulating a Security Council resolution that would make mandatory Iran halting uranium enrichment. They are pushing for the resolution being adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which would make it enforceable by sanctions or military action. But Russia and China are not co-operating.
Meanwhile, President Bush has stated that a military option -- potentially a unilateral America military strike -- is possible if Tehran refuses to stop enriching uranium and continues to disallow international inspection of its nuclear program.

How much longer can the U.S. and Israel sit and wait? How much time can we spare once the Mullahs have nuclear weapons in their hands?

To discuss these questions with us today, we are joined by:


James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1993-1995).



Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, the co-author with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on their book Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. He is a retired Air Force Fighter Pilot who has been a Fox News Military Analyst for the last four and a half years and continues to appear regularly on Fox. He just returned from his second visit to Iraq in December, 2005.

and


Kenneth R. Timmerman, the author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum, New York), and Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran.

FP: James Woolsey, Tom McInerney and Ken Timmerman, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.


Mr. Woolsey, let’s crystallize the key issues: does Iran have nuclear weapons? What is the danger? What must we do about it?

Woolsey: Few would suggest that Iran has nuclear weapons yet, but it seems to be making progress on operating a cascade of gas centrifuges and claims it has enriched uranium up to fuel grade.

How soon it could have a weapon depends very heavily on the progress of this enrichment process (unless, say, the North Koreans helped them end-run it and sold Iran enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium for a bomb).

With a few centrifuges it would take them years to enrich enough uranium for a bomb, but with many thousands they could do the job in weeks. Our knowledge about this is spotty, as is our understanding of the quality of the centrifuges, which can also affect the pace substantially. Once they have enough fissile material for a bomb, a simple device of the sort of design of our Hiroshima bomb is, unfortunately, not hard to put together. A warhead for a missile would take more work.

This is all of course extremely dangerous, given especially the genocidal fanaticism of the Iranian regime. I would seriously doubt that either Russia or China would agree to any effective sanctions in light of their commercial interests in Iran.

I would advocate, prior to any use of force, that we try to assemble a group of nations that would take tough actions to try to effect a regime change: e.g. a blockade against Iran's imports of refined petroleum products (they do not refine most of the petroleum they use).

I will defer to Tom McInerney regarding the design and effect of an air campaign. I would only add that I agree with John McCain that the use of force in this case is the worst option except for one: letting this regime have nuclear weapons.

One more point - if we use force we must take out the instruments used by the regime to terrorize the Iraqi people – e.g. the Basiji, the Revolutionary Guards, etc. It would be a very bad idea just to strike at the regime's known nuclear facilities and to leave the regime intact.

FP: Thank you Mr. Woolsey.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney?

McInerney: One of the nice things about following Jim Woolsey is that I agree with all he has said. We all want to solve this diplomatically but my reading is that Iran thinks the U.S. is pinned down and does not have the will. Russia and China are our enemies in this endeavor and will ensure that any UNSC action fails, including Chapter 7, so I think we have to form a coalition of the willing composed of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, Australia, EU 3 plus other willing NATO countries.

[Krusty]

Good article abe. Why do you suppose Russia and China are going to block it in the Security Council ? Answer that question and you'll answer why we REALLY want to invade Iran (though we seemingly ignore other countries with nukes with far more volatile leadership and countries that have a track record of genocidal tendencies -- the Iranian revolution took American hostages in 1979, but they've NEVER ONCE invaded anyone or attempted any sort of genocide in that time ... they were attacked by as US-backed Iraq that gassed their troops in the 80s but that's it ).

Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela between them have quite enough energy reserves and enough technological advancement to form a viable alternate to the US dominated world order that arose after the fall of the Soviet bloc. Part of the "private sector miracle" in the 1990s was due to the opening of numerous markets that were closed off to us and the rapidly expanding global product and labor market that the US snatched a huge chunk of during that era. America will (and is currently) trumping up rhetoric against all of these countries (Iran, Venezuela, Russia, then China ... roughly in that order of importance) to justify whatever it has to do to keep this alternative from developing. Energy is plentiful and dirt cheap in all of these places which could entice quite a few other countries (especially in Latin America and the near east) to join their "bloc" to the exclusion of US interests (and detriment of the US dollar, US businesses, US economy, and US influence in the global system).

It still boggles my mind how these conflicts get personified like some WWF pay-per-view with Iran (or Venezuela, or Iraq) playing the part of some crazed madman who wants to blow up the world. This is cold, calculated geopolitical jockeying for position ... no more, and no less. If Iran wanted to nuke somebody, they could easily acquire the means to do so ... they don't have to go to the trouble, work, and research to develop that technology internally if all they really wanted was a bomb.

Watch what plays out over the next few months with the OPEC summit, with Russia's ruble-based commodity exchange and Iran's attempted "oil bourse". Watch how firmly or how lightly the Russians and Chinese line up on the side of Iran and how close Venezuela becomes to Iran. Basically, the more success these countries have at forming an alliance with one another, the more the US will try desperately to quash it by any means necessary (including another offensive war, potentially nuclear, that most of the world will condemn). France is actually in agreement with the US and Britain on this one where they were the holdout over Iraq. What's going on here is almost laughably transparent -- the rhetoric is some bogus preemption of a threat that could just as easily justify an invasion of, say, Pakistan or South Korea (a fear of some future potential use of nukes that cannot really be proven will happen -- which Iran could pull off without developing an internal nuclear program). We're going to invade Iran for altogether different reasons ... this "they might have a bomb in 5 years and then they might use it against us" is a load of hogwash. We're going to invade Iran because they are a target of opportunity (i.e. they aren't as powerful as Russia and China) that could help break up a developing alliance that would pose a substantial challenge to the global US dominance that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Good article abe. Why do you suppose Russia and China are going to block it in the Security Council ? Answer that question and you'll answer why we REALLY want to invade Iran (though we seemingly ignore other countries with nukes with far more volatile leadership and countries that have a track record of genocidal tendencies -- the Iranian revolution took American hostages in 1979, but they've NEVER ONCE invaded anyone or attempted any sort of genocide in that time ... they were attacked by as US-backed Iraq that gassed their troops in the 80s but that's it ).

Oil. And please don't start with the ONE REASON arguments that so many liberals and other war opponents tried to sell. There's more than one reason, m'kay?

Originally Posted by Krusty

Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela between them have quite enough energy reserves and enough technological advancement to form a viable alternate to the US dominated world order that arose after the fall of the Soviet bloc. Part of the "private sector miracle" in the 1990s was due to the opening of numerous markets that were closed off to us and the rapidly expanding global product and labor market that the US snatched a huge chunk of during that era. America will (and is currently) trumping up rhetoric against all of these countries (Iran, Venezuela, Russia, then China ... roughly in that order of importance) to justify whatever it has to do to keep this alternative from developing. Energy is plentiful and dirt cheap in all of these places which could entice quite a few other countries (especially in Latin America and the near east) to join their "bloc" to the exclusion of US interests (and detriment of the US dollar, US businesses, US economy, and US influence in the global system).

It still boggles my mind how these conflicts get personified like some WWF pay-per-view with Iran (or Venezuela, or Iraq) playing the part of some crazed madman who wants to blow up the world. This is cold, calculated geopolitical jockeying for position ... no more, and no less. If Iran wanted to nuke somebody, they could easily acquire the means to do so ... they don't have to go to the trouble, work, and research to develop that technology internally if all they really wanted was a bomb.

Seems you missed this part:

We can't do this successfully if stability is our paramount goal and we refuse to exploit these divisions in its name. It should not be difficult to see that Iran is today ruled with an iron hand by genocidal fanatics with a vigorous nuclear weapons program and, for some of them, explicit enthusiasm for mass death and even for the end of the world.

What case can anyone make for regarding the continued existence of this regime as anything but an unprecedented tragedy waiting to happen?

Originally Posted by Krusty

Watch what plays out over the next few months with the OPEC summit, with Russia's ruble-based commodity exchange and Iran's attempted "oil bourse". Watch how firmly or how lightly the Russians and Chinese line up on the side of Iran and how close Venezuela becomes to Iran. Basically, the more success these countries have at forming an alliance with one another, the more the US will try desperately to quash it by any means necessary (including another offensive war, potentially nuclear, that most of the world will condemn). France is actually in agreement with the US and Britain on this one where they were the holdout over Iraq. What's going on here is almost laughably transparent -- the rhetoric is some bogus preemption of a threat that could just as easily justify an invasion of, say, Pakistan or South Korea (a fear of some future potential use of nukes that cannot really be proven will happen -- which Iran could pull off without developing an internal nuclear program). We're going to invade Iran for altogether different reasons ... this "they might have a bomb in 5 years and then they might use it against us" is a load of hogwash. We're going to invade Iran because they are a target of opportunity (i.e. they aren't as powerful as Russia and China) that could help break up a developing alliance that would pose a substantial challenge to the global US dominance that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

They may be all the things you said. And all of the reasons you give may be true. But GWB did not have his hand up Ahmadinejad's butt working him like a Charlie McCarthy doll when Mahmoud said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. When you come up with your theories the idea is to account for all the known factors. Anyone can make up a plausible story if all you do is satisfy one set of known facts.
...

[abe]

Trap number one: we must not fall for the allure of false democratic movements, such as the Mujehedin-e Khalq. This Islamist-Marxist cult hides behind a number of fronts, including the National Council of Resistance and a host of U.S.-based “Iranian-American community” groups, and pretends to support democratic ideals. But make no mistake. The Mujahedin murdered Americans in the 1970s, took part in the Khomeinist revolution, helped the regime seize the U.S. embassy and take U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979, and remains committed to an Islamist state in Iran. Additionally, the MEK has aroused widespread hatred in Iran because it sided with Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

By the way, this information is directed at those of you who believe that Saddam wouldn't have had anything to do with a religious group.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Good article abe. Why do you suppose Russia and China are going to block it in the Security Council ? Answer that question and you'll answer why we REALLY want to invade Iran (though we seemingly ignore other countries with nukes with far more volatile leadership and countries that have a track record of genocidal tendencies -- the Iranian revolution took American hostages in 1979, but they've NEVER ONCE invaded anyone or attempted any sort of genocide in that time ... they were attacked by as US-backed Iraq that gassed their troops in the 80s but that's it ).

Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela between them have quite enough energy reserves and enough technological advancement to form a viable alternate to the US dominated world order that arose after the fall of the Soviet bloc. Part of the "private sector miracle" in the 1990s was due to the opening of numerous markets that were closed off to us and the rapidly expanding global product and labor market that the US snatched a huge chunk of during that era. America will (and is currently) trumping up rhetoric against all of these countries (Iran, Venezuela, Russia, then China ... roughly in that order of importance) to justify whatever it has to do to keep this alternative from developing. Energy is plentiful and dirt cheap in all of these places which could entice quite a few other countries (especially in Latin America and the near east) to join their "bloc" to the exclusion of US interests (and detriment of the US dollar, US businesses, US economy, and US influence in the global system).

It still boggles my mind how these conflicts get personified like some WWF pay-per-view with Iran (or Venezuela, or Iraq) playing the part of some crazed madman who wants to blow up the world. This is cold, calculated geopolitical jockeying for position ... no more, and no less. If Iran wanted to nuke somebody, they could easily acquire the means to do so ... they don't have to go to the trouble, work, and research to develop that technology internally if all they really wanted was a bomb.

Watch what plays out over the next few months with the OPEC summit, with Russia's ruble-based commodity exchange and Iran's attempted "oil bourse". Watch how firmly or how lightly the Russians and Chinese line up on the side of Iran and how close Venezuela becomes to Iran. Basically, the more success these countries have at forming an alliance with one another, the more the US will try desperately to quash it by any means necessary (including another offensive war, potentially nuclear, that most of the world will condemn). France is actually in agreement with the US and Britain on this one where they were the holdout over Iraq. What's going on here is almost laughably transparent -- the rhetoric is some bogus preemption of a threat that could just as easily justify an invasion of, say, Pakistan or South Korea (a fear of some future potential use of nukes that cannot really be proven will happen -- which Iran could pull off without developing an internal nuclear program). We're going to invade Iran for altogether different reasons ... this "they might have a bomb in 5 years and then they might use it against us" is a load of hogwash. We're going to invade Iran because they are a target of opportunity (i.e. they aren't as powerful as Russia and China) that could help break up a developing alliance that would pose a substantial challenge to the global US dominance that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

good post krusty

shanghai cooperative organization (SCO) is an alliance among asian countries that claims itself as predominantly an economic cooperative, but also includes some security arrangements, non-aggression mainly iirc.

iran might become a permanent member at their annual meeting, june 15.

i believe the US is now aiming to counter-balance this growing alliance by trying to distance individual members. for instance, the US's recent nuclear overtures to india so their oil usage would relieve some pressure on the world market. india, along with china are the biggest importers of sudanese oil. having india out of sudan, helps alienate china (sudan really needs to be addressed)

another example, cozing up with the various -stan's offering military support and money, despite despotic leadership in those countries. selling F-16's to pakistan. the middle east is the new battle-front, but it's not based on terrorism, imo.

also, i just learned that iran has the largest U deposits in the middle east, and apparently have found some more - Iran finds 'new' uranium ore (not sure how those numbers relate globally). guess that shoots some holes in the argument 'if they have so much oil why don't they just use that? why do they want nuclear power too?' well, they got that too and they aim to use it.

[Jawbone54]

And to think that I formerly believed that Ahmadinejad was just such a charming, squishy little fellow...

I didn't need a declaration of war from Iran to say it...
FIRE ZE MISSILES!!!!

[rambo47]

Bah, nukes are so "1980". I say it's time for bio-weapons. By the time they figure out they're even under attack, weaponized ebola has eaten the lungs of 70% of their population.