Video: Iran Threatens To "Explode" Ships

Recordings Show Iranian Boats Swarming 3 U.S. Warships In Persian Gulf; Iran Denies Threats

(CBS/AP)  Small Iranian fast boats swarmed around U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, and a man speaking heavily accented English threatened, "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after ... minutes," according to a video released Tuesday by the Pentagon.

The Iranian boats appeared to ignore repeated warnings from the U.S. ships, including horn blasts and radio transmissions.

In a four-minute, 20-second video, shot from the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, the small boats - including a bright blue one - can be seen racing near the wake the U.S. ships and crossing close to each other.

From the Hopper's bridge, after spotting the approaching Iranian boats, a Navy crew member says over the radio: "This is coalition warship. I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. Intend no harm."

Often uneven and shaky, the video condenses what Navy officials have said was a 20-minute or so clash. It ends with a blank screen, as only the audio of the Navy's final warning can be heard, just after the voice warns that they are coming.

"Inbound small craft: You are approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity in unknown; your intentions are unclear," the unidentified crew member says. He then cautions the Iranians that if they do no steer clear they will be "subject to defensive measures."

"Request that you alter course immediately to remain clear," the crew member says.

The Americans couldn't believe what they heard next, CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports.

After a pause, the man with the accent issues a final threat: "You will explode after (indecipherable) minutes."

Earlier Tuesday, Iran's Revolutionary Guards corps denied that its boats sent threatening messages to the U.S. Navy convoy, and it defended its right to ask American vessels to identify themselves.

The Guards have said their boats approached the convoy early Sunday and asked the U.S. ships to identify themselves, then allowed them to continue into the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, a prime Middle East oil-shipping lane.

"No threatening messages were exchanged," state television quoted an identified Revolutionary Guards official as saying Tuesday.

American officials said the Iranian boats harassed the U.S. vessels and threatened to blow them up, calling the incident a dangerous provocation as President George W. Bush prepared to leave Tuesday on his first major trip to the Middle East.

The White House called the alleged incident "a reckless and provocative act," reports CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller.

A top U.S. Navy commander in the region said Monday that the Iranian boats radioed a message "to the effect that they were closing (on) our ships and that the ships would explode - the U.S. ships would explode," said Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based at nearby Bahrain.

The Pentagon said five small Iranian boats repeatedly "charged" three U.S. warships - cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham - on what the U.S. Navy called a routine passage in international waters.

It also said the Iranian vessels dropped boxes in the water and warned the U.S. ships that they would set off "explosions," a U.S. Defense Department official said.

On Monday, Iran's Foreign Ministry called the incident a "normal" encounter between the two countries' ships and said it had been resolved.

U.S. Navy and Iranian officials have said in the past that vessels from the two rival nations frequently come into contact in the waters of the narrow, heavily trafficked Gulf. They often communicate by radio to avoid incidents.

But the latest incident was the first time U.S. officials have spoken of such a direct threat from Iranian boats.

On Tuesday, senior Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Reza Tangsiri was quoted as saying Iran had the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Persian Gulf.

"It is a basic responsibility of patrolling units of the Revolutionary Guards to take necessary interception measures toward any vessels entering into the waters of the Persian Gulf," Tangsiri said, according to the Mehr news agency.

"We are entitled to use our definite right in the Strait of Hormuz to take controlling measures in relation to the entry of any vessel into the Persian Gulf," he was quoted as saying.

[samsel3]

Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy.Condi Rice is a former board member of Chevron Oil and mouthpiece for the administrations energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which will go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan, to the gulf of Oman and on to India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007. Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''''t care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios

[samsel3]

In the Daily telegraph, July 22, 2006 Condoleeza Rice stated her main objective in the middle east was not to push a ceasefire in Lebanon, but to cause an isolation of Syria and Iran. The strategic objective is all tied to oil and oil pipelines.
The Israel Turkey pipeline has been in the works for some time now. In April of 2006 Israel & Turkey made their announcement which included four pipelines which will bypass Syria & Lebanon. The source of the oil is the BTC pipeline from the Caspian Sea Region. Shareholders in the BTC pipeline are: British Petroleum, AzBTC, Chevron, Statoil, TPAO, ENI, Total, Itochu, INPEX, ConocoPhillips & Amerada Hess. Another very important factor on the war with Lebanon is that Israel will have a strategic role in protecting the pipeline and transportation corridor out of Ceyhan Turkey. The strategy will weaken Russian oil''s role in central asia and also isolate Iran.

[vega_1618]

THE U.S. IS LOOKING TO UNDERMINE A PROVOCATION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN..

[clestes-2009]

Agreed!

Everything else said about Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq is all just PR to cover up the real intentions of the Bush admin which has EVERYTHING to do oil, Israel and NOTHING to do WMD or spreading democracy.

It just amazes me how many people fail to understand that simple fact. All it requires is a little common sense. These two buffoons and their cohorts are all from big oil or pro-Israel fanatics. What does the middle east sit on? Massive oil deposits! You don''t say! Seems pretty obvious to me.

This whole incident is over blown. I am not saying there was a misunderstanding, there probably was. But we are not privy to the actual statements made, nor do we know what actually happened. The important point here is that it was resolve in a sensible way and much cudos go to the CO for his calmness and restraint.

[hungry1968]

I''ll say it again - there is a very simple solution to all of this.

All Bush has to do is send the US ambassador to the UN to the Iranian ambassador and deliver a message:

"If any Iranian vessel comes within a 1/2 mile of ANY American military ship, it will be given one warning to turn away, and then sunk if it keeps approaching."

Given in the forum of the UN, the US would be completely justified in using "all means necessary" to protect it''s ships if it came to that, and Iran wouldn''t have any recourse as it was already warned.

[quetzal666]

What if Venezuelas Navy Conducted War Games off the Texas Coast and Cuba sent some ships as well?
do you think the coast Guard would not go off to Investigate and ask to identify?
the US has been in the area conducting war games,
its a provocation, or as the Gov says a show of force, a bullying Tactic.

[neoconrcrazy]

"The White House called the alleged incident "a reckless and provocative act,"


yes, and they know a thing or two about reckless acts!

[b-easy63]

Before we can offer sage advice, commentary or anything else about this alleged incident--we have to remember the lies that got us into Iraq and ask ourselves--is this the truth? Or trumped up lies to justify us later attacking Iraq? We just got through playing this game with George Bush.

A simple thing such as releasing video showing what the Iranians did would suffice. Not a transcript of an intercepted message as that could be bogus--but actual footage.

But I doubt we will get that due to "national security " issues. We just have to trust our government, that continually denies. lies and misleads us deeper into doo doo land.

[quetzal666]

I wonder if Bush took along some Vaseline to JewReusalem in order to facilitate his selling out this countries security to his jewish masters.
toe Tapping anyone???

[b-easy63]

CORRECTION:

Before we can offer sage advice, commentary or anything else about this alleged incident--we have to remember the lies that got us into Iraq and ask ourselves--is this the truth? Or trumped up lies to justify us later attacking IRAN? We just got through playing this game with George Bush.

[Con Mohrat]

Above, left, is a "TimeLine" about U.S. and Iran.
Is this an example of journalism by CBS? It''s ingredients include duplicates, a spelling error, but what is especially loud and clear are the omissions.
It could have ended with Iran has not worked on a nuclear weapon for four years.
It could have started with the beginning of the stealing of Iranian oil by the British in 1904 by their First Exploitation Company.
It could have continued with the British leaving, twice, for WWI and WWII, and returning again and again for the exploitation.
It could have continued with Mobil Oil, who got in there after the British left.
It could have continued with the British still trying to take over "their" oil after the Anglo Iranian Oil Company was renamed the Iran National Oil Company.
Now the American hyennas and jackals are still sniffing around to rob Iranian oil.
But not to worry, Iran has China for a good customer, and Russian and Chinese weapons for the beasts of prey.

[b-easy63]

In Corporate speak, whenever HR or a superior wants to get rid of someone too important to just fire--they build a case. Often, this means fabricating or spinning events to make the other person look bad --incompetent or dishonest or questionable. It is always started with little things and built up from there. We start with little things because it makes the case more believable. This is especially important if we have no real reason for firing but want someone out.


In the case of Iran, it looks like the former corporate wizards are building their case. Like Iraq, it can''t start with the big bang--but with little ones like "he won''t let the inspectors in" then other justifications like --He killed his own people, finally there is the build up and scare tactics of linking him to Al Qaeda, the bogus yellow cake and the non existent labs. It has to be done in this way to fool the average American. (and it seems to work every time)

see next post

[earth561]

It could have continued with Mobil Oil, who got in there after the British left.
It could have continued with the British still trying to take over "their" oil after the Anglo Iranian Oil Company was renamed the Iran National Oil Company

vet1971

You forgot to mention that without Western expertise and exploration the "oil" would still be in the ground and Iran would still be in the 14th century selling the world pottery instead of getting $ 90-100 a barrel for "oil".

Thanks for the one sided view of things

[b-easy63]

BUILDING THE CASE AGAINST IRAN

People are commending the Naval CO for his restraint. Most likely a ploy. Show we tried to work with and be accommodating and not harm the Iranians, then keep showing them doing stuff to us like supplying weapons to Iraq, sending in spies, confronting us. The case must be built that they picked on us and we only did what any self respecting country would do to protect itself.

The problem is--we are depending on known liars to tell us what happened. If our premise for being in the ME was wrong in the first place (and we have acknowledged that it was faulty) then anything else proceeding from our presence ---stems from that mistake. The case build up began with blaming Iran for a lot of the insurgency, and now it proceeds apace.

I do not commend the CO for not firing. No doubt those were his orders--to be there, to provoke or to spin and to report and show we held back. This from the invaders of the region. Yeah, right. Been there--seen that.

[Con Mohrat]

You forgot to mention that without Western expertise and exploration the "oil" would still be in the ground and Iran would still be in the 14th century selling the world pottery instead of getting $ 90-100 a barrel for "oil". Thanks for the one sided view of things
Posted by earth561 at 10:46 AM : Jan 08, 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since you mention western technology, how about Northern technology? The Russians have built a nuclear power plant for Bushire, and are ready to give them the fuel. You must be eleated they don''t have to sell Persian rugs and pots anymore.

[vintage1960]

It''s likely Iran did exactly what the US Navy said it would... they would like nothing better than for Bush to cancel his trip. As far as an Oil war, wake up peolple, that''s just stupid. We have plenty of our own oil. If Dems really though this war was about OIL, all you need to do is agree to drill Alaska and other areas within the US that have PLENTY of OIL for americans. Yippie, look at the pump prices, our CONTROL of Iraq has really increased our supply of oil and lowered the cost for all americans... morons!

[earth561]

What if Venezuelas Navy Conducted War Games off the Texas Coast and Cuba sent some ships as well?
do you think the coast Guard would not go off to Investigate and ask to identify?
the US has been in the area conducting war games,
its a provocation, or as the Gov says a show of force, a bullying Tactic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Quetzal666 at 10:20 AM : Jan 08, 2008

Yes, and within teritorial waters, not international waters. Big difference between the "Starit of Hormuz and the Carribian waters.

You might try and buy yourself a map and the rules of international engagement before portraying yourself as a mini-historian

[b-easy63]

The only people that do not see that the Bush Admin is fishing for a reason to

1. Confront Iran
2. Declare a state of emergency and maybe postpone elections (and if we rebel use the National Guard which Bush can now commandeer for the first time in US history--against us)
3. Remain in power

Iran may indeed by aiding and abetting the insurgency Sort of like us aiding and abetting the Taliban against the Soviet Union. Or maybe like us aiding and abetting the Contras against the Sandinistas. Or anywhere else we continually, sometimes secretly aid and abet--

We accuse them of supplying weapons to those who resist our occupation. (like when does a nation assist invaders in occupying them?) sort of like us fed exing bombs to Israel and providing Billions so they can bomb civilians in Lebanon.

Now we are on the home turf of those in the ME--and are outraged that they dare question our presence on their home turf. How dare they? Don''t they know who we are?

We are the saviors of the world--determined to "save and rescue" any who have oil and give them freedom and democracy. Even if we have to kill every single one of them to do it.

[earth561]

Since you mention western technology, how about Northern technology? The Russians have built a nuclear power plant for Bushire, and are ready to give them the fuel. You must be eleated they don''''t have to sell Persian rugs and pots anymore.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Vet1971 at 10:50 AM : Jan 08, 2008

Why don''t you mention the Philipines while your at it. What does Russia have to do with your claims of Mobil etc. being in Iran ? A very typical ploy by you to evade the point I was making.

[quetzal666]

Or maybe like us aiding and abetting the Contras against the Sandinistas. Or anywhere else we continually, sometimes secretly aid and abet--
......................................................

the Contras were a terrorist organisation,
directly funded by illegal arm sales to Iran,
under Oliver North and Reagan/SHRUB Sr.

[earth561]

Oil Companies in Iran and the ME

http://www.virginia.edu/igpr/APAG/
apagoilcompany.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by FloydZepp at 10:59 AM : Jan 08, 2008

and your point ??????????

If they all left than what ? Would Iran be happy NOT selling oil ?

[lfitts1]

It''''s likely Iran did exactly what the US Navy said it would... they would like nothing better than for Bush to cancel his trip. As far as an Oil war, wake up peolple, that''''s just stupid. We have plenty of our own oil. If Dems really though this war was about OIL, all you need to do is agree to drill Alaska and other areas within the US that have PLENTY of OIL for americans. Yippie, look at the pump prices, our CONTROL of Iraq has really increased our supply of oil and lowered the cost for all americans... morons!

Posted by Vintage1960

Actually no matter what we do, we do not have enough oil--the US wastes oil like drunken sailors--conservation and alternative energy sources are pooh poohed..we need to declare war on energy dependence--let''s conserve and go for renewable energy sources--wind, solar etc..but that would interfere with the status quo..there should be a minimum increase of $1/gal on gasoline immediately--if we had worked on this since 1973--we could have gotten somewhere--but no we only work on the crisis system

[Con Mohrat]

There will be many on these boards that exhibit the angry Pavlovian response to the 444 days of capture of the Americans, without knowing the years of provocations that caused the Iranians to do do.

So be it. You cannot explain much to such persons with closed minds, and it''s futile to try. So go ahead and stew. I won''t argue with anyone displaying the mentality of a stone column.

[earth561]

earth561....
isnt there a hand job u need to be doing while praying or toe tapping?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Quetzal666 at 10:57 AM : Jan 08, 2008

I guess you prefer to jerk off between yourselves like you do on a daily basis. I think its time for that blue pill your supposed to take.

[b-easy63]

Yippie, look at the pump prices, our CONTROL of Iraq has really increased our supply of oil and lowered the cost for all americans... morons!
Posted by Vintage1960 at 10:51 AM : Jan 08, 2008

Actually, what is moronic is your idea that we are there for the cookies or freedom. Part of the Iraqi reconciliation package which Iraq resists, is the granting of autonomy and leasing and exploration rights to big oil for the next 30 years. That is one thing all sects in Iraq (besides the Kurds) agree with--not allowing such total exploitation by the US.

We are there for oil--you are naive if you thought the purpose of oil was to make it cheap for Americans. It is not. It is to make a select few very rich and to enhance short term profits--from 20.00/barrel to 98.00 per barrel--they have been having record profits. It is a rousing success. Also to increase market share (get those people in Iraq to buy, buy, buy and to build more Walmarts and Coke companies and to tie that market to America to offset the threat of the EU which now is a large and more impt consumer (and more solvent) than the US who can''t get its partners to form the same formidable group (Mexico, Canada and Central/S. America) if we do not gain partners to form a union with to offset the Asian and European threat--we will be third world.

see next post

[b-easy63]

Yippie, look at the pump prices, our CONTROL of Iraq has really increased our supply of oil and lowered the cost for all americans... morons!
Posted by Vintage1960 at 10:51 AM : Jan 08, 2008


Finally it is to have a strategic military position within the middle east and to position ourselves as the enforcer and front person on a global scale. Everyone will have to pay us to protect their pipelines, and to give us a cut of their profits. No different than any mafioso thug in a neighborhood. So got it:

Strategic position, immense profits, new markets and NONE if it with the American consumer in mind--we are a tapped out market--overconsumption--they need new blood--we are just the former base and the former dupes--they are on to greener pastures. And they are the corporate cummmm global raiders. Your greatest naivety is thinking YOU matter.

[lfitts1]

If you guys have something to add to the conversation or have a point make it--it you want to fight like children--go somewhere else

[greeneyes222]

I really don''t care what Iran claims. Anything that close to our ships should have been blown out of the water.

[b-easy63]

Or maybe like us aiding and abetting the Contras against the Sandinistas. Or anywhere else we continually, sometimes secretly aid and abet--
................................
......................

the Contras were a terrorist organisation,
directly funded by illegal arm sales to Iran,
under Oliver North and Reagan/SHRUB Sr.

Posted by Quetzal666 at 10:56 AM : Jan 08, 2008


I know who the Contras were. And I know we aided and abetted their attempt to overthrow their country''s gov. We do that a lot. It is okay when we do it though. "terrorists" are the names given to foreigners that attempt to overthrow any country''s government or disrupt society through violence" One country''s terrorist are another country''s rebel--as for the aider and abettor--it is our "covert operations." Same difference--we just put lipstick on it when we do it.

[quetzal666]

The Point is, SHRUB Jr, is provoking a confrontation,
Since he used the WMD Card already he needs onother joker in the Deck!!!

[b-easy63]

If they all left than what ? Would Iran be happy NOT selling oil ?

Posted by earth561 at 11:01 AM : Jan 08, 2008


Are you on drugs? They would sell plenty of oil --just not to us. As for exploration and equipment--China, Russia and yes--Europe would waste no time stepping into the vacuum our leaving created. Contrary to many Americans opinions--we are not that necessary for world profitability or survival.

[b-easy63]

es, and within teritorial waters, not international waters. Big difference between the "Starit of Hormuz and the Carribian waters.

You might try and buy yourself a map and the rules of international engagement before portraying yourself as a mini-historian

Posted by earth561 at 10:52 AM : Jan 08, 2008


Actually, we do NOT KNOW where they were. We only know where we were told that they were. They could have been anywhere. Like the WMD (that we knew exactly where they were) maybe even East, West, North and South of Tikrete. lmao

[earth561]

If they all left than what ? Would Iran be happy NOT selling oil ?

Posted by earth561 at 11:01 AM : Jan 08, 2008


Are you on drugs? They would sell plenty of oil --just not to us. As for exploration and equipment--China, Russia and yes--Europe would waste no time stepping into the vacuum our leaving created. Contrary to many Americans opinions--we are not that necessary for world profitability or survival.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 11:13 AM : Jan 08, 2008

So what your saying is that "America " should protect the passageway of oil and that American oil should not have access to the oil but allow free trade with Europe and China ? I keep forgetting about the European 6th fleet and how they saved the world since 1900.

Are you also saying that BP (British Petroleum) and Shell (Dutch) etc. did not USE Iran according to your logic ?

[earth561]

es, and within teritorial waters, not international waters. Big difference between the "Starit of Hormuz and the Carribian waters.

You might try and buy yourself a map and the rules of international engagement before portraying yourself as a mini-historian

Posted by earth561 at 10:52 AM : Jan 08, 2008


Actually, we do NOT KNOW where they were. We only know where we were told that they were. They could have been anywhere. Like the WMD (that we knew exactly where they were) maybe even East, West, North and South of Tikrete. lmao


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 11:16 AM : Jan 08, 2008

Iran DID Not deny it. How do you really know if you were born ? Were you there to witness it ?

[earth561]

The Point is, SHRUB Jr, is provoking a confrontation,
Since he used the WMD Card already he needs onother joker in the Deck!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Quetzal666 at 11:13 AM : Jan 08, 2008

don''t be so quick about the WMDS. History might just find that its all in Syria or buried in the western desert. Sadaam scurried his fighter jets into Iran in the first Gulf War.

[quetzal666]

earth561....
we are to assume that you know first hand where and how it happened? show us proof. direct us to the source of your accurate statements,

point is SHRUB Jr, is a known liar, we are to take it he is for once acting on the defensive??
get a grip on reality.

[lfitts1]

You''''re on the wrong post board if you think that''''s gonna happen. Everytime we start actual discussions on the actual topic of the article, one or more Freakvangelical Deadend Shrub Lovers shows up and starts blithering and spewing. It goes downhill from there... :^)

Posted by FloydZepp

I agree that the SHRUB is a horrible president and Cheney is worse..but the Iranians are nothing t owrite home over--they are in some ways more scary than the North Koreans because they have money and oil..as for the discussion becoming personal--stick to the subject and don''t take the bait...just think of it as advice your mother would have given you

[b-easy63]

Posted by earth561 at 11:20 AM : Jan 08, 2008


No what I am saying is that America has a hero/savior complex and think we are God''s gift to the world instead of recognizing we are just players on the stage like everyone else and that we do not own it, should not dictate to it and cannot control it.and America should mind her own business and protect her own borders and dev. her own resources. As for other countries and who protects a passage--we assume too much. Like responsibilities and expectations that we have no right to make or want.

We pass out money like candy while meddling in other countries and wonder why the world has its hands out but does not respect us or even like us. We put puppets in power who kill, starve and destroy their own people while providing us access to resources and wonder why those same people attack us later and foment hatred. We pit groups against each other, start clubs like kids where only our best buds get to have resources, weapons, nukes, etc and everyone else should just suck it up and accept who the "in crowd" is. We act like a country of frat boys or hs kids who never stopped being jocks and party girls--the most popular and the most bullying. And I am saying that money trumps loyalty so Shell and BP and others not only use Iran, but will continue to do so if we were to pack up and leave. We need to get over ourselves.

[middleman8]

The U S claim about Iran is as absurd as my three and half pound Yorkie terrier attacking a pit bull.

[gkc99]

Given the lack of veracity of the US government about the falsified "Gulf of Tonkin incident", one has to doubt this hysterical accounts of what happened in the Perian Gulf. Is it just another example of the Darth Bushit regime''s war-mongering? An attempt to stir up the US peasantry for the upcoming election? Trying to suck us into another useless war like Vietnam?

On the other hand, seeing how the US repeatedly threatens Iran, it wouldn''t be too surprising if the Iranian counterparts of the Darth Bushit regime are rising to the bait. The US is a long way from home there, and Iran is not a country that is convincingly threatened from a boat.

[b-easy63]

Iran DID Not deny it. How do you really know if you were born ? Were you there to witness it ?

Posted by earth561 at 11:22 AM : Jan 08, 2008


Iran does not deny confronting us--but where we actually were and what transpired--now THAT is a matter of intepretation and subject to propaganda, manipulation and spin. (Sans evidence).

It is similar to where the British ship was when the people were captured. The UK refuses to release the gps info citing National security. NS from what? The Iranians already knew where their people where and captured them--after the fact what do they not want known? Where is our GPS of the event and our video to corroborate our version?

And of course I was there to witness my own birth, and feel it and experience it--a participant is not blind or oblivious--they just have a very unique vantage point.

[poopusbuttus]

You''''re on the wrong post board if you think that''''s gonna happen. Everytime we start actual discussions on the actual topic of the article, one or more Freakvangelical Deadend Shrub Lovers shows up and starts blithering and spewing. It goes downhill from there... :^)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by FloydZepp


You mean, like right now?

[b-easy63]

on''''t be so quick about the WMDS. History might just find that its all in Syria or buried in the western desert. Sadaam scurried his fighter jets into Iran in the first Gulf War.

Posted by earth561 at 11:25 AM : Jan 08, 2008

If they are in Syria, then it is not in Iraq. And if it is not in Iraq, we had no business spouting lies (bush knew the yellow cake was bogus and curveball was a liar before he ever spoke in public about them) to invade and kill all of those people.

If the WMDs are anywhere besides where we went--we still caused a lot of hell and misery and loss of life and infrastructure based on misinformation. And don''t discount the lying or the agenda. When Bush wrote to Blair and stated we would trump up or frame Saddam if necessary to start a war whether WMD were found or not--that really is all she wrote. After the Downing St. Memo --everything else is just an underlining of what the Bush regime would or did do--to have their war.

[samsel3]

Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy.Condi Rice is a former board member of Chevron Oil and mouthpiece for the administrations energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which will go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan, to the gulf of Oman and on to India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007. Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios

[samsel3]

In the Daily telegraph, July 22, 2006 Condoleeza Rice stated her main objective in the middle east was not to push a ceasefire in Lebanon, but to cause an isolation of Syria and Iran. The strategic objective is all tied to oil and oil pipelines.
The Israel Turkey pipeline has been in the works for some time now. In April of 2006 Israel & Turkey made their announcement which included four pipelines which will bypass Syria & Lebanon. The source of the oil is the BTC pipeline from the Caspian Sea Region. Shareholders in the BTC pipeline are: British Petroleum, AzBTC, Chevron, Statoil, TPAO, ENI, Total, Itochu, INPEX, ConocoPhillips & Amerada Hess. Another very important factor on the war with Lebanon is that Israel will have a strategic role in protecting the pipeline and transportation corridor out of Ceyhan Turkey. The strategy will weaken Russian oil''s role in central asia and also isolate Iran.

[b-easy63]

It''s not the Iraq war. Or the Iran war. It was and always will be the economy, stupid.

We live, lie, kill, destroy, justify, spin and war--for money. For marketshare, to control money, resources, etc. Of course we are in Iraq for oil--because oil makes money. When Mubarrak scuttled Dem elections in 2005 and killed his own citizens (as when we say nothing about Musharref) the words of the State Dept to those acts say it all "better a dictator friendly to the interests of the US, than a democracy that is not"

THAT says it all about why we are really in Iraq. For Democracy or Freedom? Get real. It is for control and money. Puppet regime, access to oil, strategic place to get more, increased market share. It also says why Iran is looking pretty good--more oil, more market share--never forget that Saddam was our buddy until he said he would tie the price of his oil to European currency and not sell to America--about that time--we decided we did not like what he did with the WP and helicopters we gave him--by gassing the Kurds. It was also at that time, that we told him, we did not care if he attacked Kuwait. We attacked him the very next day. Pity, the idiot said he was going to tie the price of his oil to the Euro in 2000. Just in time for us to kick is inspectors out and kill him for WMD--that he no longer had.

[samsel3]

On September 14,2002 Rep. James McDermott at a Capitol Hill Briefing said that politics and oil, not fear that Iraq will use WMD are driving factors behind the presidents call for regime change. McDermott said there was an organized effort to squelch such discussions. "The political operatives in the white house have been very careful to spin it away from oil. Anytime anybody sees a connection they spin it the other way".
Who''s in charge of the National Media outlets? Why does the administration spin the news and prevent journalists from covering the real agenda? The administration cloaks the truth under the veil of national security. On September 14,2002 Rep. James McDermott said: "Political operatives in the white house have been very careful to spin it away from oil. Anytime anyone sees a connection they spin it the other way".

[b-easy63]

Only an idiot or a consummate liar would now say we are there for any reason except oil. Even in July of 2007, Bush was on tv stating that we could not leave Iraq, because if we did, the 3rd largest reserve of oil would be left in the hands of Al Qaeda --and did the world want that? Freudian slip? We think not.

The words "warring for oil" is like the word "incestand rape" We all know it is going on in families--but we are loathe to admit, speak about it or examine it--because the causative factors are just to ugly and say way too much about the perpetrators to ever stand the light of day. Now, the media rarely says rape--"physical assault or even sexual assault" is more commonly used. But we all secretly know what it means---even those who defend those who do it --know the truth--but to admit it says too much about both the perps for doing the vile act and them for defending it--to ever come clean and acknowledge it.

Why are we insisting that part of Iraq''s internal reconciliation include a 30 year oil lease for our interests? Shouldn''t that be after the reconciliation and not part of it? Why do our interests enter into their personal, country''s negotiations?

[squidly8]

lfitts1, I take offense with your "drunken sailors" analogy. Why does everyone want to blame the squids for the debauchery of the world. :-)

[yongamerica]

Don''t worry, these ships all have cameras, and there are plenty of satellites that confirm where this altercation occurred. Iran is show its Ignorance here. Because Iran is run by a Ignorant Supreme Leader. Even the title, Supreme Leader drips of Ignorance. This man wants to believe he will be the supreme leader of a muslim world order.