Bush/Blair War Provocation Memo Sends Warning To Iran
Today's revelations that Tony Blair and George W. Bush debated staging an act of provocation to goad Saddam Hussein into war sends a very clear warning as to how a pretext for a conflict with Iran could be manufactured.
It was reported today that Bush and Blair's 31 January White House meeting was a rubber stamp on the decision to go to war, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorizing the use of force. However, this isn't the story. As far back as 1999, before he was even elected, George W. Bush told his biographer that he thought it was his political destiny to invade Iraq.
The real story here is that Bush proposed flying a U2 spy plane over Iraq and painting it in UN colors, therefore goading Saddam to order the aircraft to be fired upon and resulting in a widespread UN mandate for the war.
It is important to pause and underline the fact that when we talk about Bush, we are really talking about the puppet masters behind Bush. A man who has to ask permission to use the little boys room isn't about to craft any kind of war strategy.
To re-iterate, the US government considered staging an act of provocation that would fool the world into supporting an unpopular war.
This tactic is by no means new. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war, was a staged event that never actually took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.
Operation Northwoods, Pearl Harbor and the attack on the USS Liberty are other historical examples where the same method of staged provocation was either considered or directly used in an attempt to start a conflict.
In a more modern context, the Pentagon's P2OG program was aimed at launching "secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, meaning it would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks by US forces. "
Others would argue that the worldwide torture program is another indirect method of provocation whereby radical Muslims would be angered into increasing their attacks on US interests.
Judging by the history of attempts to provoke enemies into appearing to strike first, we should be all the more wary that this could be the pretext used to justify a war on Iran.
Appearing on the Alex Jones Show, British Member of Parliament George Galloway was asked whether he saw the possibility of the military-industrial complex staging a terror attack to be blamed on Iran. Galloway responded by saying that he thought it was "a very real danger."
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and CIA analyst Ray McGovern have also expressed their fears that a staged attack is possible.
Russian Governor and former nuclear power plant manager Pavel Ipatov today stated that Iran was incapable of building a nuclear weapon. Such an assertion was even backed up by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who stated that Iran simply does not have the material to produce nuclear bombs.
Even the CIA's own national intelligence estimate concluded that Iran was at least ten years away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors say there is no evidence of a weapons program.
But they removed the seals! What about the seals!
Removing the seals was portrayed by the media as an act of defiance, without considering for a moment that Iran voluntarily put the seals on in the first place! Removing the seals doesn't mean that Iran is going to produce a bomb five minutes later but the willful ignorance surrounding this issue has artificially escalated tensions without recourse.
There is no evidence that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon. They don't have the material to do so and even if they did, their every action is under constant scrutiny. It would be like you or I trying to manufacture a wristwatch with a piece of cloth while not being able to use our arms or legs.
But Ahmadinejad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map!
There's no debating the fact that Ahmadinejad is not the sharpest knife in the draw. However, such a comment needs to be taken in context.
Firstly, there is no possible way Iran could invade Israel. There are four routes to Israel, three are fortified with US troops and the other by Turkish troops under US control.
Secondly, Iran invading Israel would be like Barney the purple dinosaur waking up King Kong. The wrath of the US and Israel's nuclear might would immediately rain down on Iran and turn it into a giant car park.
Ahmadinejad's comments were a crude political points scoring gimmick just like President Bush's "just bring 'em" quip to Iraqi insurgents.
The warhawks and the media seem to be less concerned about the fact that top Chinese general's like Zhu Chenghu are threatening to nuke American cities.
Kim Jong-il, on an almost annual basis, threatens to "destroy the earth." Most analysts agree that North Korea already has nuclear weapons but it goes unnoticed, even as North Korea fires dummy missiles that hit Alaska.
The end justifies the means. Iran has been targeted for elimination and the bloodthirsty salivating PNAC crowd are going to do everything they can to engineer a war, by fair means or foul.
The rivers of history and the alarm bells of today should remind us all that a staged incident remains an omnipotent danger as we accelerate further into 2006.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/iraq_bush_blair_war_provokation.htm
We are being set up again just like in Iraq.
and Farsi is not Arabic lol,there are 2 different languages!
,but i just pointed out the fact that Farsi and Arabic are 2 different languages( cause i thought u didnt know 
all the rest who replied to me, i'll reply soon, i just cant right now im off to work,i just wanted to clear the misunderstandings between me and Gardner,Thanks in advance!!
. And you cannot use historical validity to validate ur argument on why Israel has Nuclear weapons.If so,conspiracies exist at this moment,cause history has always showed us the existance of such(Sykes-biko treaty).Yet when someone says that for example 9/11 never happened and base his argument on scientific methods,everybody refuses it and call it " conspiracy".i know the last sentence was irrelevant to the subject,but i was showing u my point that you cannot trust a country would not use nukes in the future just because it hasnt used them yet.