Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[American Patriot]

Well I agree that it's out of our hands. And my position is more nuanced than I might've suggested. If it were clearly our own nation's national interest (energy usage from the Middle East) to see that one nation or other not become Regional Hegemon and therefore derive unfair advantage or even control over us through our energy needs, that nation should be stopped, but not in such a way that defeats the principle of our national self-interest to begin with.

I believe if you look hard enough, you will see I was on the "Drill here, Drill Now" band wagon.

We don't need the Middle East's oil. It's a load of bullshit coming out of people that says we do, and stop our own people from drilling the oil up under our own feet.

[American Patriot]

Bloomberg News

U.S. Officials Escalate Warnings to Iran

By John Walcott on March 01, 2012





Obama administration officials are escalating warnings that the U.S. could join Israel in attacking Iran if the Islamic republic doesn’t dispel concerns that its nuclear-research program is aimed at producing weapons.



Four days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to arrive in Washington, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz told reporters the Joint Chiefs of Staff have prepared military options to strike Iranian nuclear sites in the event of a conflict.



“What we can do, you wouldn’t want to be in the area,” Schwartz told reporters in Washington yesterday.



Pentagon officials said military options being prepared start with providing aerial refueling for Israeli planes and include attacking the pillars of the clerical regime, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its elite Qods Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Pentagon plans are classified.



“There’s no group in America more determined to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon than the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Army General Martin Dempsey told the House Budget Committee yesterday. “I can assure you of that.”



Separately, unnamed U.S. officials told the Washington Post that U.S. military planners are increasingly confident that sustained attacks with the Air Force’s 30,000-pound (13,608 kilograms) “bunker-buster” bombs could put Iran’s deeply buried uranium-enrichment plant at Fordo out of commission.
Meetings Failing

The latest American warnings of possible military action against Iran come after meetings between top Israeli and Obama administration officials failed to resolve differences over when an attack would become necessary, according to officials of both countries who have participated in the discussions.



Most Israelis oppose a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if it doesn’t have U.S. support, the Globes financial daily said, citing a survey conducted by the Washington-based Brookings Institute. Only 19 percent of Israelis support their country striking Iran without U.S. backing, Globes said.
Will to Act

“Because there is uncertainty about the administration’s will to act in the Israelis’ minds, and more importantly in the Iranians’ minds, it’s very important that we don’t just say that all options are on the table, but also show that they are, by some overt means,” Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee and was one of the recent visitors to Israel, said in a phone interview.



Other U.S. officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because the discussions have been private and because the administration is trying to reassure Israel and its American supporters of its determination while also tamping down fears that are helping drive up oil prices.



Iranian leaders are using the bellicose talk to draw voters for tomorrow’s parliamentary elections, the first since a disputed vote in 2009 that sparked mass riots.



The ballot “will be a slap in the face of enemies of the nation,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on his website yesterday, urging voters to “stand tall and show your determination” by taking part. Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani last week called the election “a big step to preserve the dignity of the Iranian nation.” Israel declined to comment.
Drawing the Line

About 48 million Iranians are eligible to vote and more than 3,400 candidates have been cleared to compete for the 290 seats in the assembly, known as the Majlis.



The most significant difference between the U.S. and Israel, said American officials, is where to draw the line on Iran’s atomic program. Parliament doesn’t have power over the country’s foreign policy and the outcome of the race is unlikely to affect Iran’s foreign policy.



Obama administration officials have suggested that the trigger for military action should be a decision by Khamenei to enrich uranium beyond a current level of 20 percent that supports nuclear-power generation to a weapons-grade level 85 or 90 percent.



U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials said they agree that such a decision would be hard to detect until sometime after it had been made.
Israel is more concerned about Iran’s missile and nuclear- weapon technology programs while the U.S. is focused on the Persian Gulf nation’s uranium-enrichment activities, the Israeli officials said.
Targets Measured

Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordo would be difficult to destroy because they were built to withstand air attacks. Israel, which has the 5,000 pound GBU-28 bomb, said its ability to strike is underestimated, according to the officials.



Iran’s warhead and weaponization facilities at the military complexes at Parchin and Bidganeh and elsewhere are more vulnerable, at least for now, the Israeli officials said, according to Americans who met with them.



Iran barred International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Parchin site in February, and a still-unexplained Nov. 14 explosion at the Bidganeh missile base killed an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general.



The Israelis said what worries them is that Iran could complete work on warheads, triggers, neutron reflectors and the other ingredients of a nuclear weapon or move that work to harder-to-hit facilities.
Intelligence Report

A recent U.S. intelligence analysis concluded that if Iran can get its centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium and assemble in different locations the 33-44 pounds of material needed for a weapon, a delivery system and other necessary components, it could build an atomic weapon in two months, said two U.S. officials who have read the analysis.
Further underscoring the timing issue, U.S. and Israeli officials have concluded that Iran may be content with a computer test of a new weapon rather than detonating one in the desert, thanks in part to confidence inspired by what they said is significant North Korean assistance. These officials also spoke only on the basis of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified.



The American officials said their Israeli counterparts are less inclined than the Obama administration is to give the toughening economic sanctions on Iran more time to work for a second reason: They are skeptical that sanctions can ever persuade Iran to abandon its pursuit of an atomic weapon.
Israel’s Role

In different meetings with American counterparts in Washington, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Tamir Pardo, the head of Israel’s foreign- intelligence service Mossad, argued that only Israeli military action prevented Iraq and Syria from going nuclear.



They also said witnessing the dictators of non-nuclear Iraq and Libya toppled by or with Western assistance, coupled with a deep sense that Shiite Muslim Iran is entitled to a weapon that Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Hindus, Russia and China all possess, may reinforce Iran’s intentions of continuing to develop a weapon.



High-level visitors have included Barak, Pardo, Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director David Petraeus, Dempsey, U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, White House adviser Dennis Ross, Rogers and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.
U.S. Resolve Questioned

These talks have failed to dispel Israeli doubts that President Barack Obama is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands, the American officials said. Barak described a meeting with Panetta yesterday only as “important and useful.”
Netanyahu isn’t convinced Obama will alter his emphasis on sanctions as a mean to change Iranian behavior, U.S. officials said.



Responding to a question during a House Appropriations subcommittee budget hearing yesterday about concerns Israel may attack Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded: “Let’s focus on economic sanctions that we have the world behind right now. We believe we’re making progress on the sanctions front.”
U.S. Policies

Iran doesn’t believe the U.S. has the resolution to intervene again in the region, according to the Israeli officials, who cited Washington’s abandonment of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the limited support given Muammar Qaddafi’s overthrow in Libya. They said Washington succumbed to domestic political pressure in exits from Iraq and Afghanistan.


Finally, the Israelis told some U.S. officials that the administration’s failure to retaliate against Iran for plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. and its inability to get Egypt to free the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who is one of 16 American pro-democracy activists charged with operating without government permission, has reinforced an image of American weakness.



Some Republicans share those doubts. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Obama administration should be “more clear” in its determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
“The intelligence community is uncertain about Iranian intentions,” Graham told reporters at a news conference yesterday. “You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.”



To contact the reporter on this story: John Walcott in Washington at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net



To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

[American Patriot]

Obama Says Military Option on Iran Not a ‘Bluff’

By MARK LANDLER

Published: March 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Obama, speaking days before a crucial meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, rejected suggestions that the West could contain a nuclear-armed Iran, and warned that the United States could take military action to prevent it from acquiring a bomb.





Jim Young/Reuters


President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on July 6, 2010.





But the president also said he would try to persuade Mr. Netanyahu, whom he is meeting here on Monday, that a pre-emptive Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could help Tehran by allowing it to portray itself as a victim. And he said such military action would only delay, not prevent, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.



Mr. Obama’s remarks, in a 45-minute interview with The Atlantic magazine earlier this week, were intended to reassure Jerusalem of Washington’s resolve to protect its ally against an Iranian threat, while making the case that Israel should not take matters into its own hands.



“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in the interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent with The Atlantic. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are.



“But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” the president said.



Mr. Obama’s remarks built on his vow in the State of the Union address that the United States would “take no options off the table” in preventing Iran from acquiring a weapon. But he was more explicit in saying that those options include a “military component,” albeit after a list of other steps, including diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions.



While administration officials have signaled that the United States is not contemplating a “containment” strategy toward Iran, Mr. Obama had not been as unequivocal in rejecting it. Such a strategy, he said, would run “completely contrary” to his nuclear nonproliferation policies and raise a host of dangers the United States could do little to control.



The president spoke at length about how he believed Iran’s acquisition of a weapon would trigger an arms race in the Middle East, offering his most robust case for why the West could not successfully contain Iran the way it did the Soviet Union during the Cold War.



There is a “profound” danger that an Iranian nuclear weapon could end up in the hands of a terrorist organization, Mr. Obama said, and several other nations in the region would feel compelled to push for nuclear weapons to shield themselves from a nuclear Iran.



While the president noted that Israel understandably felt more vulnerable to an Iranian threat because of its geography and history, he said, “This is something in the national security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community.”



Israeli officials have said that they may feel compelled to strike Iran before its nuclear program becomes effectively impregnable by sheltering its key uranium-enrichment facilities in a fortified complex under hundreds of feet of granite in a mountainside.



Mr. Obama, who made diplomatic outreach to Iran a hallmark of his first year in office, said he still believed that Iran’s leaders could make a rational calculation, under the pressure of international isolation and harsh sanctions, to give up their nuclear ambitions.



“They recognize that they are in a bad, bad place right now,” the president said. “It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to be the best decision for Israel’s security.”



Pointing to Libya and South Africa, Mr. Obama noted that countries tend to relinquish nuclear weapons on their own, rather than as a consequence of military action. The United States, he said, was seeking a permanent, not a temporary, solution to the problem.



Taking note of the violent uprising in Syria, Mr. Obama also said an Israeli military strike could deflect attention from other forces in the region that were eroding Iran’s power and influence.



“At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes,” he said, “do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons?”



Still, with Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington and supporters of Israel gathering for a conference of the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Obama sought to project solidarity between the United States and Israel. He also said that the two were largely in sync in their appraisal of Iran’s nuclear program.



“Our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt,” he said.

[American Patriot]

Iranians Go To Polls In National Elections

March 02, 2012
State media have reported that voting in Iran's parliamentary election has been extended by one more hour because of high turnout.


The deadline had already been extended by two hours earlier, as state television broadcast pictures from polling stations in Tehran and the provinces showing long lines outside polling stations.


Earlier, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose supporters are expected to do well in the vote, called for a high voter turnout as he cast his ballot.



Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, said it was a "duty and a right" for every eligible Iranian to vote. (RD: This does not include women, of course)



He said a large turnout in the elections on March 2 would send a strong message to Iran's enemies amid the nuclear standoff with the West.


"My advice is the usual advice," he said. "I believe that this [voting] is a responsibility for us, whilst it is also a right that belongs to us. We should make use of this right and undertake this responsibility."


The election is the first major Iranian vote since the disputed reelection of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2009, which sparked mass protests and a government crackdown on the reformist Green Movement.


Meanwhile, Iranian media say the authorities have detained 10 people described as "saboteurs." The Fars news agency quoted Mohammad Naqi Baqeri, head of the election security department, as saying the alleged saboteurs had "come from abroad to Tehran."


More than 3,400 candidates are competing for the 290 seats in the Majlis.
Some 48 million people are eligible to vote.


With the elections being boycotted by Iran's main opposition and reformist groups, the leaders of which have been under house arrest, the vote is seen as a contest between allies of President Ahmadinejad and loyalists backing Khamenei.


Analysts have predicted that candidates aligned with Khamenei will emerge in the dominant position -- dealing a blow to supporters of Ahmadinejad, whose administration has been criticized for failing to revive Iran's sluggish economy, which is suffering from high inflation and unemployment.


The outcome of the election is not expected to result in any change to Iran's foreign policy, as parliament has traditionally played a bigger role in economic policy.
But the result is expected to help set the political stage for the 2013 presidential election, when Ahmadinejad will step down after reaching the end of his two-term limit.


The U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Watch has called the elections "grossly unfair" because most of the approved candidates for the election were conservative regime supporters.


No independent election monitors have been allowed into the country.
Final official results for the elections, which will be counted manually, are expected to be announced late on March 4.


Authorities have urged voters to go to the polls, with state TV, radio, and other media carrying appeals describing voting as a religious duty and warning that low turnout could embolden Western enemies set on attacking Iran.


The June 2009 presidential election and subsequent massive street protests prompted a brutal response from authorities that has included televised mass trials, roundups of dissenters and critics, and allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings.


With AP, Reuters, dpa, and AFP reporting

[American Patriot]

U.S. anxiety grows over possible Israeli plans on Iran










updated 2/3/2012 2:32:58 PM ET


LONDON — The Obama administration is increasingly anxious about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program but does not have hard proof that it will strike Iran in the next few months, U.S. and European officials said.

The U.S. uncertainty and lack of information about Israel's plans on Iran were behind an alarming assessment of the situation reportedly voiced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the officials said.


David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist who specializes in intelligence matters, reported that Panetta believed there was a "strong likelihood" that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear program within the next six months -- as early as April, Ignatius wrote.


Three U.S. officials who follow the issue said their understanding was that the United States did not have concrete intelligence suggesting an attack by Israel on Iran in that time frame was likely or actively being prepared.


The current U.S. assessment is that for months Israel had been making contingency plans and tentative preparations both for such an operation and for possible Iranian retaliation, two of the officials said.


Nonetheless, said the officials, indications were that Israel's leadership had not made a final decision to attack Iran.


Ken Pollack, a former White House and CIA official with expertise on the Gulf, said the sudden rise in public discussion of an Israeli strike on Iran's known nuclear sites -- including increasingly dire warnings from Israel's leaders -- were misleading.
Advertise | AdChoices





"If Israel has a good military option, they just take it, they don't talk about it, they don't give warnings," said Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "So the fact that they are talking about it, to me, is one tip-off that they don't have a good military option.


"We should never rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike and the odds have probably increased in recent months as a result of a number of different factors. But ... there are a lot of disincentives that have prevented Israel from launching a strike for 10 years," Pollack said.


VAGUE PANETTA RESPONSE


Panetta was vague when asked by journalists to confirm what the Washington Post had reported.


"Frankly, I'm not going to comment on that," he told reporters travelling with him in Europe. "David Ignatius, you know, can write what he will but, you know, with regards to what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else."


When pressed further, Panetta said: "There really isn't that much to add except that, you know, that they're considering this and, you know, we have indicated our concerns."


Asked about the background to Panetta's reported views, one of the U.S. officials noted that Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, had been "increasingly vocal" in expressing concern that Israel might be "running out of time" to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The official said that some Israelis have indicated their view that in the next three or four months the need for Israeli action could become critical.


But the view of many career experts inside the U.S. government is that Iran's nuclear development program, which Tehran insists is for civilian nuclear purposes, is unlikely to pass the point of no return in that time frame.


Earlier this week, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress and publicly re-stated the long-standing view of U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran's leaders have not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon.
Many, if not most, Western experts believe it would take Iran at least a year to build a weapon once leaders decided to go ahead.


But some Israel leaders and experts believe that an attack would have to be launched earlier if Iran's nuclear effort is to be set back seriously. Barak has warned that Iran's nuclear research could soon pass into what he called a "zone of immunity," protected from outside disruption.


Barak recently was quoted telling a security conference in Israel, "Later is too late," one of the U.S. officials noted. The official said that U.S. policymakers had to be concerned about the possibility of an early Israeli attack "given that Barak and Netanyahu seem so determined to do it."
Advertise | AdChoices





In January an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed by man who attached a bomb to his car -- the fifth such attack in two years. Israel's military chief said Iran could expect more such incidents.


POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IN U.S.


One of the U.S. officials said that while Israel may have the military capability to delay Iran's nuclear effort for a period of time, to deal the Iranian program a serious and long-term setback would require additional military power, presumably from the United States.


But Panetta's alleged remarks and other Obama administration's statements indicate the White House is focused on dissuading Israel from taking action - and distancing itself from an Israel strike if persuasion fails.


A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election. Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure to back Israel's actions.


"The U.S. is not too excited about engaging with Israel or being part of anything at this point," one official said.


A European defense analyst, who has access to classified all-source intelligence, said that while Iran's behavior was relatively predictable, the greatest uncertainties facing the U.S. and its allies stemmed from Israel's stance.


Despite internal power squabbles, the analyst said, Iran has been "quite restrained and limited in its responses." Recent inflammatory comments by Iranian leaders, such as threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, were relatively low-intensity compared to other threats and physical confrontations in the Gulf of past years.


"Israel is, practically speaking, the wild card in the pack," the analyst said. "We have no specific information on when or if they will attack but based on their past history and current stance, it is something we do expect at some point."

[American Patriot]

Iran media report big turnout in elections

AFP – 17 mins ago

• Enlarge PhotoVoters queue outside a polling station at the Massoumeh shrine in the religious city …
• Enlarge PhotoFormer Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani casts his ballot in front of a …

Iran's media reported a huge turnout on Friday in parliamentary elections described as a "blow" to the West, while voters said they were mostly preoccupied with their sanctions-hit economy -- and non-voters spoke of a "sham" poll.


The elections to fill the 290 seats in parliament, known as the Majlis, were the first since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was returned to office in a disputed 2009 vote that prompted opposition cries of fraud.


While that re-election sparked widespread protests brutally put down by security forces, there was no disturbance this time, according to police.


Officials several times extended voting hours because of what media including the Fars news agency called a "massive turnout" -- a common occurrence in past elections too.


Polling stations finally closed at 11:00 pm (1930 GMT), officials said.


Authorities were keen to present a high turnout to show they enjoyed broad public support and legitimacy, especially at a time when they are confronting the United States and its European allies over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.


Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said as he cast his ballot that vigorous voter participation bolstered "the future, prestige, security and immunity of the country."


State media and many voters echoed his assertion that Iran's voters had dealt "a blow to the face of the enemies" in the West.


The official Islamic Republic News Agency praised the "passionate participation" of voters.


Some others, though, questioned the turnout claims.


They underlined that the main opposition groups, whose leaders are under house arrest, had boycotted the polls and that the 3,400 candidates approved to run were overwhelmingly conservatives.


Several university students who had favoured reformists in the 2009 presidential election told AFP they had seen no point in voting in "sham" elections.


"The outcome is predetermined. It's of no difference if I vote or not. I learned this from the previous election, when our votes were stolen," said Reyhane, 25, sitting in a cafe with friends.


Mahmoud, 22, piped up: "I feel like the regime sees us, and our votes, as a plaything. I voted in the presidential election -- that taught me that I should never vote again."


He added that state media appealing for a big turnout was "just so they could say the regime has popular support, that it is legitimate."


The US-based rights group Human Rights Watch called the elections "grossly unfair," saying in a statement that "Iranian authorities have stacked the deck by disqualifying candidates and arbitrarily jailing key members of the reform movement."


Voters were essentially being asked to choose between two conservative camps: those backing Ahmadinejad, and those despising him for perceived nationalist intentions challenging their Islamic vision.


The poll outcome will help set the political scene for 2013, when Ahmadinejad has to step down, having reached his term limit.


Khamenei last year put a lid on the president's expanding ambitions by publicly overriding Ahmadinejad's attempt to sack the intelligence minister.


Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who has taken his distance from Khamenei, was reported by the ISNA news agency as saying Iran would have a "good" next parliament -- "should the election result be what the people want and be how they cast their votes in the ballot boxes."


Most voters AFP spoke to said the main issue on their minds was the difficulties they face in Iran's economy, which is struggling with high inflation and unemployment, and Western sanctions imposed over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons in the guise of a peaceful atomic programme, a charge denied by Tehran.


Samad, a 51-year-old pastry cook who did not give his last name, stood in line for 45 minutes in his uniform to fill out his ballot paper.


"I vote because it is my national duty," he said. "But there are many problems in our country. We did not stage a revolution to have it become worse."


Vahid Lavasani, a 34-year-old shopkeeper voting with his elderly mother, said: "I want the Majlis to resolve the economic issues and improve our relationship with the West. I also want them to rein in the president, so the country is united."

[American Patriot]

I predict a landslide for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.....

[American Patriot]

Israeli leader to US to talk about Iran tensions

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Feb 29 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By AMY TEIBEL
Associated Press


JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's prime minister sets off this week on a U.S. visit clouded by a deepening rift with Washington, which is pressing Israel to hold off on any attack against Iran's suspect nuclear program. Although Israel says it hasn't decided whether to strike, it has signaled readiness to do so—a move that would have deep worldwide implications.



Senior Israeli officials say Israel would have to act by summer in order to be effective. U.S. officials, wary that an Israeli strike could drive up oil prices and entangle the U.S. in a new Mideast military confrontation during the presidential election season, want to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work.



These differences have created tension ahead of Benjamin Netanyahu's arrival at the White House next Monday. Aides to the Israeli leader would not say what he plans to tell President Barack Obama.



"The meeting will be a good opportunity to clarify both sides' stands on ... how to act against the Iranian nuclear threat, which both sides agree is grave," Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon told Israel Radio.



Israel's Haaretz and Israel Hayom newspapers reported Wednesday that Netanyahu wants Obama to deliver an explicit military threat to Iran in a joint statement to be issued after the meeting.



Differing assessments of urgency underlie the disagreements on Iran.
Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be a threat to the existence of the Jewish state. It cites Iranian leaders' repeated calls for Israel's destruction, support for anti-Israel militant groups and its arsenal of ballistic missiles that are already capable of striking Israel. It also fears a nuclear Iran would touch off an atomic weapons race in a region hostile to Israel's existence.



Israel itself is thought to have a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons, though it does not admit that as a matter of policy.



Israel takes little comfort in the U.S. assessment, reiterated Tuesday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, that Tehran has not decided whether to build a nuclear bomb. Iran denies it is making nuclear weapons.



Israeli officials note that the U.N. nuclear agency said recently that Tehran is rapidly moving ahead with a key elements associated with bomb making, and Iran is moving its nuclear operations deeper underground. They believe these developments are strong signs of Iranian intentions.



Experts say work on a bomb could begin within a year, if not earlier, but Israeli officials who favor a strike do not want Iran to reach that point. Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently fueled speculation about an Israeli strike by warning the window of opportunity was closing.



Israeli officials have told the U.S. it will not give any warning of an impending attack—a development confirmed by a U.S. intelligence official this week.



In Washington Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney brushed off reports that Netanyahu would press Obama to spell out terms for a military strike.



"Iran has not broken out and started to pursue a weapon," Carney said, "so there is time and space to continue to pursue the policy that we have been pursuing since the president took office.



Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this week he has not counseled Israel against attacking Iran. Instead, he said, "we've had a conversation with them about time" and added he would "absolutely not" take military force against Iran off the table.



Dempsey, U.S. national security adviser Tom Donilon and director of national intelligence James Clapper have all been sent by Obama recently to pressure Israel to hold off.



The U.S. and Europe have approved tough sanctions on Iran's central bank and its key oil sector that are to go into effect this summer. They believe these measures must be given time to work.



Israel has welcomed the sanctions, but it is skeptical they will persuade Iran to back down. Israeli officials believe that by the time the toughest sanctions go into effect this summer, it may be too late to strike.
U.S. officials and others think an Israeli attack could set back the Iranian program a few years at most.



Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has expressed reservations about the effectiveness of an attack on Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facilities and Dempsey has publicly questioned whether it would be worth risking the cascade of consequences liable to follow.



Barak met in Washington Wednesday with Dempsey and Panetta to discuss the Iran issue. No details were made public.



The Iranian nuclear threat is a world problem and not Israel's alone, said Danny Yatom, a former head of Israel's Mossad spy agency. Even a temporary setback to the nuclear program would be useful, Yatom said, because it would buy the world time to try to knock it out entirely.



Iran has warned it would pummel Israel with missiles if attacked, and it could also recruit its allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, to attack Israel with rockets and missiles from closer range.



Tehran could also block the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit route for the world's oil tankers, or strike Gulf targets such as Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Either move could send global oil prices skyrocketing and draw the U.S. military into the conflict.



The disagreements over Iran have stoked the tensions that have characterized relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments, primarily over frozen Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, which pointedly seems to be a non-issue in the upcoming visit.

[American Patriot]

Washington expects Tehran to hit at US targets if Israel attacks Iran

US officials calculating that Iran will strike back but not seek to seriously escalate the conflict, expect "calibrated" response



US navy ship in the Sea of Oman, near the Strait of Hormuz. Photograph: Reuters




Whether or not the US is directly party to an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities – if it happens – American officials say they expect Tehran to blame Washington and to retaliate by hitting US targets.


But officials in Washington are calculating that Iran would not seriously escalate the conflict.


"Iran can't go force on force against us," one US official told me. "It might sink a ship or two. It might hit us in Afghanistan. But we can absorb the hits."

The Americans and Israelis consider it a virtual certainty that Iran would respond to any attack by launching missiles against Israel or with some other strike at the Jewish state. But US officials consider it less certain that Tehran would do anything that would draw the Americans into an extended conflict.


Last month, the director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency, General Ron Burgess, told the Senate armed services committee: "Iran can close the Straits of Hormuz, at least temporarily and may launch missiles against United States forces and our allies in the region if it is attacked. Iran could also attempt to employ terrorists surrogates worldwide. However, the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict."



US officials expect what they describe as a calibrated response from Tehran, and point to the example of Iran's role in the insurgency against American forces occupying Iraq.



The Pentagon accused Iran of supplying Shiite militias with explosives, rocket propelled grenades and Katyusha rockets for attacks on American soldiers. The state department responded by designating Iran's revolutionary guard and Quds Force as terrorist organisations for their support of Iraqi insurgents. But both the US and Iran avoided open, direct conflict.



Similarly, US officials think that the Iranians may hit back against American troops in Afghanistan via the insurgents there. They may also target oil wells and seek to stir trouble among the US's Arab allies

[American Patriot]

WikiLeaks: Russia Gave Israel Codes for Iran’s Missiles


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...3#.T1Exd7SwXe4

Russia gave Israel codes for breaking Iran’s missile defense system in return for codes of UAVs Israel sold to Georgia, WikiLeaks claims.
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

First Publish: 2/29/2012, 7:31 AM



Iranian centrifuges in Natanz
Reuters



Russia gave Israel codes for breaking Iran’s missile defense system in return for codes of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Israel sold to Georgia, WikiLeaks claims.


The information was among 5 million emails released this week by WikiLeaks, which said it worked in cooperation with the Anonymous hacker group. The leaked information focused on the U.S.-based Stratfor global intelligence company.


A source identified as “A” was quoted in an e-mail from a Stratfor employee as having heard from a “former Mexican cop” and military analysts that "the Georgians are frantically looking for a replacement for the Israeli UAVs that were compromised.”


The Israeli-based Elbit company had sold UAVs to Georgia since 2007, and earlier this month Georgia said it is replacing the Hermes UAVs.


“Met with my Mexican source/friend again today and dude is getting shadier by the day. We followed up on our past discussion on Russia compromising the Israeli-made Georgian UAVs prior to the August war,” said one e-mail.


“I inquired more about the compromised Israeli UAVs,” it continued. “What he explained was that Israel and Russia made a swap -- Israel gave Russia the 'data link' code for those specific UAVs; in return, Russia gave Israel the codes for Iran's Tor-M1s [missile defense system].


“I asked about the S-300 (source tracks a lot of defense deals for Jane's). He doesn't think the Russians will give it to the Iranians.



Besides, he said... Israel and Turkey have been collaborating very closely on the S-300s….The gist of what he said is that Turkey has been cracking the S-300 since the Crete sale and has been sharing intel on the S-300 with the Israelis to ensure that they retain an advantage over Iran should Iran get them from the Russians.


“SOURCE DESCRIPTION: MX301 - Former Mexican cop, Latam military analyst, writes for Jane's; SOURCE RELIABILITY: A


“The Russians got the data link for the UAV (there is some suspicion that the Israelis after the war may have given this to them…. So, since the Georgian UAVs were compromised, they then tried to sell them to the Azerbaijanis. I don’t know if that deal went through.”

[American Patriot]

Voting Ends in Iran’s Parliamentary Elections

Posted Friday, March 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Voting has ended in Iran's parliamentary elections after the interior ministry kept the polling stations open for several additional hours because of the long lines of people waiting to cast their ballots.
Iranian state media claim a “massive turnout” for the Friday elections, which are likely to solidify Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's control over conservative rivals tied to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Some 3,400 candidates are vying for seats in the 290-member parliament. More than 48 million Iranians are eligible to cast ballots.
Iran's main opposition and reformists groups boycotted Friday's election, the first since the disputed 2009 presidential vote. Mostly hardliners' names appeared on the ballots. All candidates were cleared by the Guardian Council, a powerful group of Islamic experts and jurists that rules on constitutional issues.
Iran's conservative government and clerical leaders have pursued a crackdown on the reformist movement since it staged mass protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad's re-election.
Ayatollah Khamenei predicted that a big turnout would represent an act of defiance toward Iran's enemies. He was referring to Western powers leading a sanctions campaign against Iran's controversial nuclear program, and to Israel.
Western powers have tightened sanctions as a means of pressuring Iran to stop nuclear activities that could be used to produce weapons. Iran says its nuclear program has purely peaceful goals.
During Friday prayers, conservative cleric Kazem Sedighi addressed worshippers chanting anti-American slogans. Sedighi told the crowd that Friday's elections showed the world that Iran's reformist leaders do not have the support they once did.
“In this round of elections they [the West] were under the impression that they can do something because the leaders of sedition [Green Movement leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi] were absent, and they assumed these [leaders] still have supporters and because of that they can do something [sabotage the Iranian government]. However, whenever our vigilant, insightful people by the grace of God felt that the enemy was plotting, they came out and made an outstanding turnout.”
After casting his vote, Iran's former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said he wishes the election results would come strictly from the ballot boxes. Mr. Rafsanjani heads the powerful Expediency Discernment Council, which advises the country's Supreme Leader on policy and seeks to resolve deadlocks between lawmakers and the Guardian Council.
“God willing, the outcome of the elections will be what the people want, and the result will come from the votes they cast into the ballot boxes. If it will be so, God willing, we will have a good parliament, because the people really care about Islam, the Revolution and Iran. The people's choice is really important. I hope that people, with their effective participation, turn the parliament into such a place that can be effective at this critical time for our country.”
Iran's Guardian Council says no outside organizations will be permitted to monitor the turnout or vote-counting process. Council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei said Thursday the presence of international observers would be an “insult” to the Iranian people.

[American Patriot]

Netanyahu Says He Won’t Declare ‘Red Lines’ for U.S on Iran


By Jonathan Ferziger - Mar 2, 2012 12:49 PM MT



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today he won’t go to the White House next week demanding that President Barack Obama accept his terms for whether to take military action against Iran.



“I haven’t set down red lines and I will not set down red lines for the United States,” Netanyahu told reporters in Ottawa after a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.



Tensions have increased between the U.S. and Israel over how to deal with Iran, as one U.S. official after another has called for additional time to let new, more severe sanctions have an impact. Israeli leaders have warned publicly that time is running out for a military strike that could stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.



Netanyahu, who will spend the next two days in Ottawa before going to Washington to meet with Obama, said the world should avoid falling into a “trap” set by Iran where the country would agree to talks about its nuclear program while still developing arms.



“The warnings that I and others have been giving over the years will materialize unless Iran is stopped,” Netanyahu said. “All options should be left on the table.”



Robert Gallucci, a former special envoy on weapons proliferation and assistant secretary of state in President Bill Clinton’s administration, said today he believes there is “no ambiguity” that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and that ultimately it cannot be stopped without military action.
Iran Program

“There’s an enrichment program; there is a plutonium program,” Gallucci, now president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, said at a forum on nuclear rogue states, held at the Brookings Institution, a policy center in Washington. “This is a nuclear weapons program.”



Obama, in an interview published today in the Atlantic magazine, said Iran can’t be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and the U.S. will do what’s necessary.



“I don’t bluff,” Obama said of a U.S. willingness to use military action if needed. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are.”


The U.S. and the European Union tightened economic sanctions following a November 2011 report by United Nations inspectors that Iran’s nuclear research program may include pursuing the capability to build a nuclear weapon. It said there was evidence Iran was working on a design to fit on a missile capable of reaching Israel and Europe. Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian energy and medical research.

[American Patriot]

March 02, 2012
Voting Ends in Iran's Parliamentary Elections

VOA News

[IMG]http://media.voanews.com/images/480*320/reuters_iran_election_02Mar12-resizedpx480q100dpi96shp8.jpg[/IMG] Photo: Reuters
People stand in line to cast their votes at a mosque in eastern Tehran, Iran, during the parliamentary election, March 2, 2012.

Parliamentary Election Facts

• Candidates are cleared by the Guardian Council.
• 3,444 candidates are running out of the 5,395 who registered.
• Parliament has 290 seats.
• Voters must be over 18 years old.
• 48 million people of Iran's 74 million strong population are eligible to vote.
• Ballots are counted manually.

Voting has ended in Iran's parliamentary elections after the interior ministry kept the polling stations open for several additional hours because of the long lines of people waiting to cast their ballots.

Iranian state media claim a "massive turnout" for the Friday elections, which are likely to solidify Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's control over conservative rivals tied to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some 3,400 candidates are vying for seats in the 290-member parliament. More than 48 million Iranians are eligible to cast ballots.

Iran's main opposition and reformists groups boycotted Friday's election, the first since the disputed 2009 presidential vote. Mostly hardliners' names appeared on the ballots. All candidates were cleared by the Guardian Council, a powerful group of Islamic experts and jurists that rules on constitutional issues.

Iran's conservative government and clerical leaders have pursued a crackdown on the reformist movement since it staged mass protests against Ahmadinejad's re-election.

Ayatollah Khamenei predicted that a big turnout would represent an act of defiance toward Iran's enemies. He was referring to Western powers leading a sanctions campaign against Iran's controversial nuclear program, and to Israel.

Western powers have tightened sanctions as a means of pressuring Iran to stop nuclear activities that could be used to produce weapons. Iran says its nuclear program has purely peaceful goals.

During Friday prayers, conservative cleric Kazem Sedighi addressed worshippers chanting anti-American slogans. Sedighi told the crowd that Friday's elections showed the world that Iran's reformist leaders do not have the support they once did.

"In this round of elections they [the West] were under the impression that they can do something because the leaders of sedition [Green Movement leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi] were absent, and they assumed these [leaders] still have supporters and because of that they can do something [sabotage the Iranian government]," said Sedighi. "However, whenever our vigilant, insightful people by the grace of God felt that the enemy was plotting, they came out and made an outstanding turnout."

After casting his vote, Iran's former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said he wishes the election results would come strictly from the ballot boxes. Rafsanjani heads the powerful Expediency Discernment Council, which advises the country's Supreme Leader on policy and seeks to resolve deadlocks between lawmakers and the Guardian Council.

"God willing, the outcome of the elections will be what the people want, and the result will come from the votes they cast into the ballot boxes. If it will be so, God willing, we will have a good parliament, because the people really care about Islam, the Revolution and Iran. The people's choice is really important. I hope that people, with their effective participation, turn the parliament into such a place that can be effective at this critical time for our country," said Rafsanjani.

Iran's Guardian Council says no outside organizations will be permitted to monitor the turnout or vote-counting process. Council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei said Thursday the presence of international observers would be an "insult" to the Iranian people.

[American Patriot]

Maybe I was wrong about Nutjob winning... but if I was wrong, an even worse guy is winning....

Khamenei supporters likely winners in Iran elections
March 03, 2012 02:03 AM
Reuters

Women fill in their ballots beside the box during the final minutes before the 11pm closure of polls for the parliamentary election in a mosque in north central Tehran March 2, 2012. (REUTERS/Caren Firouz)

Women fill in their ballots beside the box during the final minutes before the 11pm closure of polls for the parliamentary election in a mosque in north central Tehran March 2, 2012. (REUTERS/Caren Firouz)

TEHRAN: Polling stations closed in Iran’s parliamentary election Friday after voting was extended to let more people vote, in a poll likely to be won by supporters of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

State radio said polling stations closed at 11 p.m. (1930 GMT), five hours after the scheduled closing time of 6 p.m. (1430 GMT). Such extensions are common in Iranian elections.

Officials said some polling stations would continue to let in those still waiting to cast their ballots. Iranian leaders were looking for a high turnout to ease an acute crisis of legitimacy caused by Ahmadinejad’s re-election in 2009 when widespread accusations of fraud plunged the Islamic Republic into the worst unrest of its 33-year history.

The vote in Iran is only a limited test of political opinion since leading reformist groups stayed out of what became a contest between the Khamenei and Ahmadinejad camps.

“Whenever there has been more enmity toward Iran, the importance of the elections has been greater,” Khamenei, 72, said after casting his vote before television cameras.

“The arrogant powers are bullying us to maintain their prestige. A high turnout will be better for our nation ... and for preserving security.”

The vote will have scant impact on Iran’s foreign or nuclear policies, in which Khamenei already has the final say, but could strengthen the supreme leader’s hand before the presidential vote next year. Ahmadinejad, 56, cannot run for a third term.

The election took place without the two main opposition leaders. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who ran for president in 2009, have been under house arrest for more than a year.

Karoubi’s website, Sahamnews.org, said opposition groups and political prisoners urged people to shun this “sham election.”

No independent observers are on hand to monitor the voting or check the turnout figures that officials will announce.

Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani made a pointed reference to the outcome of the 2009 vote, which he questioned at the time. “If the election outcome turns out to be what the people cast in the ballot boxes, God willing we will have a good parliament,” the elder statesman said after voting in Tehran.

State media briefly showed Ahmadinejad voting, apparently making no comment afterward. The outgoing parliament is due to grill him next week on his handling of the economy and other issues – an unprecedented humiliation for an incumbent president, but one he may use to hit back at his foes.

Ballots are counted manually and Iranians may have to wait three days for full results.

Voting was slow at first in affluent northern Tehran but picked up later. Voters queued up in poorer parts of the capital and in provincial cities, Reuters witnesses said.

Khamenei has told Iranians that their vote would be a “slap in the face for arrogant powers” such as the United States.

The two main groups competing for parliament’s 290 seats are the United Front of Principlists, which includes Khamenei loyalists, and the Resistance Front that backs Ahmadinejad.

The president enjoyed solid support from Khamenei in the months of “Green Movement” protests that followed the 2009 election, but the two men have fallen out badly since then.

For Khamenei, the parliamentary election could reinforce his grip on power against a president seen as trying to undermine the clergy’s central role in Iran’s complex political hierarchy.

Ahmadinejad and his “deviant current” allies have alarmed Khamenei’s conservative camp by emphasizing nationalist themes of Iranian history and culture over the Islamic ruling system introduced by revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Khamenei succeeded Khomeini, who died in 1989.

Some Iranian media reports said Ahmadinejad hoped to secure the election of his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, to succeed him. Khamenei will want to install one of his own loyalists to prevent further divisions within the ruling elite.

Not everyone can run in Iranian elections. The hard-line Council of Guardians, made up of six clerics and six jurists who vet candidates, approved more than 3,400 out of 5,382 applicants.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on March 03, 2012, on page 1

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#ixzz1o0bz5qq6
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

[American Patriot]

Women voted? Impressive.

Who arranged for those photos?

[eversman]

You and Eversman don't want war, but you clearly want intervention on Israel's behalf.....

Stopping a war by starting one, truly Orwellian. And as long as it stays 'over there' and fought by jihadis and our volunteer military, who cares? I certainly don't care if the Mohammadans get trounced.

I say we reimpose the draft, though. No partying while others do the fighting for other nation's interests...Then we'll see how much of a minority i'm in.

Yeah? reimpose the draft eh? and go back to a non professional drug infested army? sounds like a great plan. you volunteering to be the first one drafted?

You still dont get it. Rick and I realize, and i have pointed it out with numerous examples you clearly ignored, that we are in a state of war with iran and have been since 1979. a SHOOTING war. one we have ignored while they keep right on shooting and killing and bombing americans. Still think we have no national interest? if so, you are willfully blind and naive to the point of stupidity. Ignore the lessons at your own peril.

Dealing with iran is no longer a choice, its a national imperative. You fail to see that. Your anti-semitism clouds your vision. Difference between you and i, and you and rick, is that rick and i realise that after iran gets nuclear weapons, the bombs will start going off in the American heartland, and they could well be nuclear, due to iranian hostilities.

The other point you fail to grasp is that iran doesnt care about Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran is willing to commit national suicide to wipe out 10-20 million Americans. That makes it a serious national security threat.

Again, if you dont grasp that yet, than you probably never will. Keep your head in the sand, the rest of us will cover your ass, like usual.

Ev

[American Patriot]

Obama Sharpens Rhetoric on Iran

BY CAROL E. LEE AND JAY SOLOMON

• Updated March 2, 2012, 7:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama declared he won't accept a nuclear weapon in Iran and insisted, "I don't bluff," setting a new tone more in tune with Israel's approach of aggressively trying to discourage Tehran's nuclear ambitions.



The shift comes just before a meeting here Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu where the two leaders will try to bridge their own differences and forge a unified Iran strategy.


Mr. Obama's message has two aims, White House officials said: to increase pressure on Tehran by highlighting the potential for military action; and to lessen the chance that Mr. Netanyahu will unilaterally initiate ...

[American Patriot]

He was talking to Michael, I think, Peterle....

[American Patriot]

There are times, Peterle when aliases are ok to use.

Personally, I never do. I always use my real name. I do it because I believe in what I say and I stand up for what I believe. I have my principles and regardless of others' opinions I will stick to them, and I will state my own opinions.

I am not afraid and hiding behind an alias. I will always stand up for what's right - and I use my name with it, no matter what happens.

Now, that is not to say that folks using aliases are hiding, nor are they liars, nor are they trying to pass propaganda.

I happen to know eversman - at least in talking to him in email and on the internet. I know where he works, have a pretty good idea of what he does for a living and most important of all, I know he has his principles too.

While you might not like what he said, you might take a moment, as should Michael and perhaps everyone else to understand he has as much right to HIS opinion as you or Michael, or anyone else.

And on this site he is allowed to state it.

I think it took him a few days or weeks to finally blow up about Michael's remarks - and you jumped in at probably an inopportune moment yourself and got caught in the cross fire.

Besides, Peterle, you live in another country. While we value your opinion coming from outside looking in, you have to realize that when several Americans are "going at it" you're libel to get caught in the middle because honestly, we're talking about American principles and beliefs - and most of us don't know what Europeans think most of the time, except what the media shows us.

The media shows us a lot of arrogant Europeans who hate Americans because "Americans are Arrogant".

It's bullshit, really, but it's what we see on TV. What can you do about it? Attitudes, yours, ours, everyones is driven by the environment in which they live and work.

I work in a military world, full of uniforms and all military ranks, civilian government workers (you wanna see arrogant, look at them) and civilian contractors caught up in the world of Defense.

We - myself and Eversman - are right in the middle of shit neither of us really, truly wants to be in the middle of, and yet, we're still doing out jobs.

Whether Michael, you or some unnamed, anonymous bozo from the Left gets on this site and starts ranting against America, our way of life, or how America is "doing things" isn't relevant. It's not going to change and none of us are going to change it.

All I can say is it's time for folks to calm down, back off a bit and take a breath.

READ twice before you respond, and if you take issue with someone PERSONALLY take it to private messaging.

I'm tired of being a target for Michael and anyone else that wants to sit back and think they "know" me or anything about me, or call me a liar or whatever.

I simply will no longer tolerate it.

I don't want to see the site dengerate into everyone fighting among themselves.

We're here to provide a place for people to talk and discuss the subjects this board brings to light. Personal attacks are done.

I don't want to see them any more.

Worse, I don't want to see any more off-handed, below the belt, innuendo attacks either.

That shit is over with.


It's a new day in America. And it's a new day in the rest of the world. Let's start acting like grown ups.

[American Patriot]

Michael, chill out. Instead of IGNORING people, perhaps it time you started listening to others on occasion.

That seems to be the problem you and I have. I ask you something, you ignore me.

That's fine. But if you're going to make comments on the site at all, then make educated comments and be able to back up when you say instead of getting defensive when people ask you to explain things.

I'm done. I don't want to see any more bullshit in the threads.