Peaceful Iran? Maybe This Will Convince Some

here we go...

I hope so!

News tonight that China is gonna be Chavez' new best friend....and oil client. Yea!!!!!the plot thickens....

Maybe that really did happen. Who can tell with all that they say being disproved about as fast as they can say it, and with all the murders and imprisonment of journalists going on these daze. Why, they got Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessing to attacking a bank before the bank even founded, and on and on it goes, the US is for torture and permanent disappearancing of it's own citizenry, checkpoints for your id papers, &c, &c. What is really going on anyway? THE PLAN according to U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOEThis was, of course precooked in the 90's, and is easily found. This is shocking, probably not what most Americans believe they stand for. exerting horrific peace through war ~ "The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower.' America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace;' to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies" (p. 2)."the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (p. 51). The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-basedthink tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and onething: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will ofall nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the lastremaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and militaryforce to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a newsocio-economic Pax Americana.The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paperproduced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlineswhat is required of America to create the global empire they envision.According to PNAC, America must:* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asiaand the Middle East;* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,submarine and surface fleet capabilities;* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop astrategic dominance of space;* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domesticproduct, up from the 3 percent currently spent.Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for theAmerican military. The two central requirements are for American forces to"fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," andto "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the securityenvironment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want Americato be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. Inorder to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these warsone way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I agree, the PNAC group documents just one portion of a larger plan, all based in dialectics. The providing of the problems, then the providing of the solutions. And there is but one end, a lucifarian manifestation. Indeed, I believe that this is so orchestrated that even when the pronouncement that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth was made known, that it was just that man's turn to stand up and read his lines. I mean, really ! How is it that there are 200k injured and mentally unstable soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan, completely disabled, not getting the medical treatment (par for the course) while at the same time the stats reported last week in a US paper that there are 30k or so wounded? The two statistics are at war one with the other.But to put the US role in an easy to see view, have a look at this map ~http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2003/1/image007.jpgread what former UN assistant secretary-general Hans-Christof von Sponeck has to say ~http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=5170

epo, The US has developed the most amazing war time surgery staffs ever and they have save more lives that ever before possible in war time circumstances. They have given millions of their vetrans medication, and medical care for generations...They have led the world in the fight on terror. They are fighting a war against a form of war never before seen... two children used as decoys this week were left in the backseat as the bombers fled the scene before the car exploded. The world has called on the US to help in almost every country where we are located, we cannot just decide to place a military base in another country without cooperation from that country...you twist this into our quest for world domination.. when we have been there to help those who have asked for it.We went into Iraq after Saddam had murdered 100's of 1000's of his own countrymen. The current basis of unrest in due to the involvement of Al Quida and Iran along with a few other Islamic organizations. The war against Saddam was complete and successful, and then these outside factions have moved in to inact the most inhumane forms of autrocities seen by the world since Hitler. You seem to be comfortable with the tactics of these bombers who blow up innocent women and children.... which suncoast is you come from exactly? Once again you twist the news stories as you have the Word of God. I feel invaded at this point by a person who desires to also seed unrest and twist truth...I am praying for you...epo... that God's will be done in your life...good luck .

Please google the video and watch it. The name is called loose change.Don't get me wrong. I am for our troops. I am FOR THEM. But they are not there for the reasons that they have been told.

Iran Ups the Rhetoric on Seized SailorsBy ALI AKBAR DAREINI (Associated Press Writer)TEHRAN, Iran - Iran claimed Saturday that 15 British sailors and marines had confessed to entering its waters in an act of "blatant aggression," an escalation of Tehran's rhetoric over the confrontation.The British Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador for the second time in two days, saying an under-secretary had spent more than an hour in "frank and civil" talks demanding the safe return of the sailors and Royal Marines, and seeking assurances about their welfare and access to British consular officials.Iran's top military official, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said the sailors and marines were moved to Tehran and under interrogation "confessed to illegal entry" and an "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters." Afshar did not say what would happen to the sailors.Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a "blatant aggression."He accused Britain of trying to cover up the incursion, saying it should "refrain from putting the blame on others."The U.N. Security Council, meanwhile, unanimously voted to impose new sanctions against Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium - a move intended to show Tehran that defiance over its nuclear program will leave it increasingly isolated.British opposition lawmakers called on the government not to allow Iran to use the capture of the military personnel as a tool in the nuclear dispute."The United Kingdom will not be blackmailed. Iran has a choice: to act responsibly; or face greater isolation," said Menzies Campbell, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats.But the British government appeared to be avoiding harsh language in its public statements as it continued to gather information about exactly what had happened and why.The British sailors had just searched a merchant ship Friday morning when they and their two inflatable boats were intercepted by Iranian vessels near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, U.S. and British officials said. The Iranians surrounded them and escorted them away at gunpoint.Britain immediately demanded the return of the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines - at least one of who was a woman - and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for smugglers off Iraq's coast.Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett and the Ministry of Defense said the troops were in Iraqi waters when they were seized.Iraq's military commander of the country's territorial waters, Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim, told AP Television News that Iraqi fishermen had reported that the British boats were "in an area that is out of Iraqi control."In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were captured, then paraded blindfolded on Iranian television. They admitted they had entered Iranian waters illegally but were released unharmed after three days.Iranian hard-liners have already called for the 15 Britons to be held until Iran wins concessions from the West.Several conservative student groups urged the Iranian government not to release the sailors until five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq earlier this year are freed and U.N.'s new sanctions against Iran are canceled. Some 500 Iranian students gathered on the shore near where the soldiers were captured, shouting "Death to Britain" and "Death to America," the semiofficial Fars news agency reported.With tensions already running high, the United States has bolstered its naval forces in the Persian Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. There is concern that with so much military hardware in the Gulf, a small incident could escalate dangerously.Afshar, the Iranian officer, warned the United States would not be able to control the consequences if it attacks Iran."The United States and its allies know that if they make any mistake in their calculations ... they will not be able to control the dimensions and limit the duration of a war," Afshar said.Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader,warned this week that Western countries "must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."The Britons were seized in an area where the boundaries of Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab - the 125-mile-long channel known in Iran as the Arvand River - as the border.But Saddam Hussein canceled that treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through an oil terminal near the mouth of the channel.Iran and the new Iraqi government have not signed a new treaty on their sovereignty over the waterway.The seized sailors, from the British frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council. Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he hoped the detention was a "simple mistake" stemming from the unclear border.----Associated Press Writer Thomas Wagner contributed to this report from London.

U.N. Approves Tougher Sanctions on Iran UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council unanimously voted Saturday to impose additional sanctions against Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium - a move intended to show Tehran that defiance will leave it increasingly isolated.Iran immediately rejected the sanctions and said it had no intention of suspending its enrichment program, prompting the United States to warn of even tougher penalties."The world must know - and it does - that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote. "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution."The moderately tougher sanctions include banning Iranian arms exports, and freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps."It's a significant international rebuke to Iran and it's a significant tightening of international pressure on Iran," said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political affairs at the State Department. If Iran does not comply, "there's no question" that the United States will seek a third and tougher resolution, he added.In December, the 15-member Security Council ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also ordered a freeze on assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. Iran responded by expanding enrichment, a process that can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.The United States and some of its allies fear Iran's nuclear program is a cover for producing atomic weapons but Iran insists it is only for energy production.Mottaki said Iran would return to negotiations over its nuclear program only if the United States and its European allies dropped the "unfair and unacceptable precondition" that it first suspend uranium enrichment.But world powers held out hope that Iran would back down before the dispute escalated even further.The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said nations involved in the dispute had tasked him to resume contacts with Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani "to see whether we can find a route to negotiations.""The door to negotiations is open; I hope we can together find a way to go through it," Solana said in statement.Burns said that because of a "tumultuous political environment" in Iran "we believe there is a faction inside that government that wishes to accept this offer to negotiate."He was apparently referring to criticism from some in Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's confrontational rhetoric has deepened the country's isolation.Ahmadinejad canceled a planned appearance before the Security Council and sent Mottaki instead, claiming the U.S. failed to deliver his visa in time. The U.S. said it had issued the visa promptly.Raising tensions, Iran detained 15 British sailors and marines Friday in what it said were Iranian territorial waters near Iraq. The 15 had been on a mission to search for smugglers in Iraqi waters.The six world powers that drafted the new resolution spent Friday trying to overcome objections from several council members, reflecting concerns that anything short of consensus would weaken efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear defiance.There were several minor concessions but no changes to the key sanctions agreed upon last week by the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.The new sanctions - already a compromise between the stronger measures favored by the United States and the Europeans and the softer approach advocated by Russian and China - are considered modest. The ban on exports is among the harshest measures, but many of Iran's arms sales may not be affected because they are illicitly sent to militant groups like Lebanon's Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq.Still, world powers hoped that approving the resolution quickly and unanimously would signal that Iran will face stricter sanctions each time it ignores a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment."This resolution sends an unambiguous signal to the government and people of Iran ... that the path of nuclear proliferation by Iran is not one that the international community can accept," said British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry.In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the Security Council gave Iran a clear choice: "Cooperate with the international community or pursue their enrichment and reprocessing activities and worsen, in that way, their isolation."Mottaki reiterated that Iran's goal was solely the peaceful pursuit of an alternative source of energy."We have expressed our readiness, taken unprecedented steps and offers several serious proposals to address and allay any possible concern in this regard," he said.The new resolution asks countries to restrict travel by the individuals subject to sanctions as well as arms sales to Iran and new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.It asks the International Atomic Energy Agency to report back in 60 days on whether Iran has suspended enrichment and warns Iran could face further measures if it does not. But it also says all sanctions will be suspended if Iran halts enrichment and makes clear that Tehran can still accept a package of economic incentives and political rewards offered last year if it complies with the council's demands.After the latest resolution met with surprising resistance from several elected Security Council members, a reference was inserted to a past resolution from the IAEA calling for the Middle East to be free of weapons of mass destruction. Indonesia and Qatar had wanted the council to make that appeal outright, but that would have had implications for Israel, a U.S. ally widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it has never officially acknowledged it.Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz - whose country considers Iran its biggest threat - said he hoped it the resolution would "really be put into effect and carry out the will of the free world, which will do everything to stop the process of Iranian nuclearization."----