...The U.S. has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in a totally criminal enterprise - one of the greatest cons in history. ...

For the Bush White House, the good news from Iraq just never stops. But the joy that President Bush has expressed over the country's latest election, though more restrained than his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, will similarly come back to haunt him.
Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops.

El Baradei was praised by the Nobel chairman for resisting U.S. pressures to find the hard nuclear evidence against Iran
they could use in their plans to justify attack.
That may not be enough to stop the U.S. and Israel from attacking Iran.

The director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapons stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development.

One of the strongest influences in the Bush Administration are the Neo-Conservatives. They fill many of the top positions in the Bush Administration. Their war plans for the U.S. in the Middle East have so far been implemented, such as their phoney war with Iraq. It was promoted before the 9/11 attack- the "Pearl Harbour" the Neocons claimed they needed to justify the war to the American people. Although the war was based on a number of lies - now well-known and publicised, both the Republicans and Democrats want victory over Iraq - nothing less. This and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton's silence about the war lie's is one of many indications that the Democrats have sold out to the Republicans and that the American system of Democracy has been corrupted by the military/industrial complex, other corporates, the oil interests and other special interests.

Steven P. Weisman wrote in The New York Times of Nov. 19 that the “biggest challenge” in President George W. Bush’s second term is “how to contain” Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, however, Iran constitutes no threat to the United States. Its “threat” is to Israel, according to “some” (read neocons) in the administration who believe that Iran supports violence against Israel and helps the resistance in Iraq.

This article gives an excellent case for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and for other states to acquire them who might become potential US targets.
However in the case of Iran, according to Scott Ritter and other experts, the US is almost ready to strike and as the following article illustrates, US media is daily conditioning the US public that Iran is an enemy that should be attacked before it gets nuclear weapons and attacks the US.

Is there a case to be made for allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the interests of peace? Or has all the air been sucked out of the debate by American and Israeli demagogues who dominate the airwaves?
The case for a nuclear Iran doesn’t emerge from fear-mongering or saber-rattling, like the alternate view, but from reason and respect for widely accepted facts; both of which are sadly missing from the analysis appearing in the western media.

Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics who writes extensively on nuclear issues. His conclusions are similar to mine and to others who study and analyse nuclear policies. Such as Dr Helen Caldicott who has predicted a nuclear war during Bush's second term.
As Dr. Hirsch suggests: the time for discussion and protest about a potential, clandestine, sudden nuclear attack on Iran is now, not after the damage has been done.

Or will the world allow it to happen?
The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear.

.....The next U.S. pre-emptive war could be against Iran, and/or Syria. Both have been mentioned as potential targets by Bush, as has North Korea if it dares to try and make nuclear weapons.
...... From the following record, and George Bush's actions and statements, we know what to expect.
Hopefully this should encourage people to work to keep New Zealand nuclear-free, and encourage other countries to adopt this step toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.

Here is a very brilliant paper by a Republican Member of Congress to the House on what he believes is the coming war with Syria. Now that the UN examination of Hariri's assassination in Lebanon reports links it to Syria the US is presented with a golden opportunity to launch another war for the planned regime changes in the middle east.

We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change – in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.
This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad.

The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all.

Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in the Middle East
The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.

...Only by constantly inventing new enemies and justifying new wars, can Bush and his Republican allies satisfy the needs of a growing military/industrial complex. President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1960 about the growing power of "the military-industrial complex". Now this has become the military-industrial-political-scientific-academic complex, as so many Politicians, Scientists and Academics depend on this complex of interests.

"Never in the history of the world has so much been spent,
so quickly and recklessly on so much wanton destruction and evil."

... U.S. strategy is to create the 'so-called ' terrorist threat' which can then be used to justify targeting any nation the U.S. selects in its endless war on terror (GWOT). By attacking various countries, which they justify by lies, as in Iraq, the Bush Administration makes an endless supply of enemies. Bush and his neocons then label them as 'terrorists'. They blame neighbouring nations for helping these 'terrorists' and proceed with the next phase in the U.S. PNAC expansionist plan.

Dick Cheney's "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT)
Vice President Cheney in a recent speech to US military personnel has acknowledged that the war could go on for several decades. This statement, which reveals the Bush Administration's commitment to global warfare, was barely mentioned by the mainstream media.
We are dealing with a "military roadmap". Iraq and Afghanistan are at the outset of the Bush administration's military adventure.

General Smedley Butler's 1933 speech is a classic that applies to Bush and his wars today. General Butler's worst fears have come true - this time with much larger annihilation devices at the command of Bush and his neocons. He gives many examples of the greatly inflated profits enjoyed by the wide range of manufacturers who make materials used in war - from munitions to warships to uniforms. Bush promised an endless "war on terror" to defend Democracy". He is delivering on this promise while creating a record-breaking national debt and enormous profits for the myriad of people and company's engaged in the runaway US war machine.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

Mankind has created a number of ways which could be used to trigger an extinction process, as assessed by this article by editors of the Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists in Dec 2004. Some factors not assessed, even more relevant today are: 1. The possibility of an unbalanced, rogue and/or ideologically-driven government gaining power and deliberately implementing a strategy of war and terror attacks which then escalate into a self-extinction process. Some suspect this may already be happening....

Loose nukes, nanobots, smallpox, oh my! In this age of endless imagining, and some very real risks, which terrorist threats should be taken most seriously?

A search on "Pre-emptive Nuclear War" revealed there are 1,750,000 entries on Google.
They illustrate the colossal investment in designing and making various types of nuclear weapons and the strategies to use them.
Think about the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the nuclear arms race during the last 65 years since 1945. Now think about the paltry fig-leaf sum devoted to peace and disarmament and the suspicion and rejection of those working in this field. These facts and reflections tell you something about humanity and our runaway race toward extinction.

A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons. While some speak of "limited nuclear war," it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the "use them or loose them" strategy. If you don't use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy's nuclear weapons.

This 2003 paper gives a historical record of the development of nuclear war as a tool to achieve US military objectives.
No longer were nuclear weapons to be regarded as a deterrent "last resort" type of doomsday device. There was a new doctrine to use nuclear weapons first or "pre-emptively" - supposedly before the claimed enemy had a chance to use what the Pentagon calls "weapons of mass destruction" against the US.
The Pentagon will supply the so-called "intelligence" to justify it. This would likely be a phoney doctored intelligence, similar to what they supplied to justify the war on Iraq with a litany of accusations later found to be false.
Based on what they knew to be lies, Bush for the US and Blair for the UK , nevertheless warned they might use nuclear weapons against Iraq if Iraq resisted the US-UK invasion with WMD.
The alleged WMD could be anything the Bush Administration chose to define as WMD.

It Keeps Getting Scarier and Scarier
...The prospect of the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iraq adds a new, even more horrifying dimension to the threat of war in the Persian Gulf. LaRouche has already called on President Bush to renounce this madness.
The leak of the Jan. 10, 2003 document did not come in a vacuum. For the past year, the Bush Administration has been moving, step by step, to overturn a fifty year policy of keeping nuclear weapons on the shelf, as part of America's strategic deterrent. Here is a short chronology:
In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

Although written in 2002, the following article gives a blueprint on how the US can create covertly, the very terrorism they condemn and which they use to justify wars - such as the much-predicted war on Iran. It may seem puzzling and counterproductive why the so-called terrorists in Iraq seem to be attacking Sunnis and Shiites in the apparent attempt to foment a civil or religious war between the two factions. Why would they do that if the objective is to get rid of US occupation?
On the other hand if a civil war did develop in Iraq, the US would have a reason to remain rather than withdraw, thus giving them a motive to foment a civil war between the two factions.
The British used similar techniques called "divide and rule" - setting one faction against another - in building their Empire.

This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.
This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times.

Throughout human history, we have created many ingenious reasons to go to war - thousands of wars. PNAC's US Empire plans and methods may be diabolically evil, but also extremely cunning and effectively sold by all the techniques of modern communication. The US people have been carefully shielded from knowing about the myriad of lies and P2OG operations to deceive them into supporting, and believing in the validity of Bush's "war on terror". Now we are entering a new stage in the Empire building plan.

Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.
Adolf Hitler clearly spelled out his plans to destroy the Jews and launch wars of conquest to secure German domination of world affairs in his 1925 book, long before he ever assumed power. Despite the zig-zags of rhetoric he later employed, the various PR spins and temporary justifications offered for this or that particular policy, any attentive reader of his vile regurgitation could have divined his intentions as he drove his country – and the world – to murderous upheaval.

n the article below, past US presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche predicts a new Bush neocon-generated terrorist attack on the US. This will be used as an excuse to launch a nuclear attack on Iran, as 9/11 was used to launch an attack on Iraq.
Iraq was accused by a litany of false accusations and outright lies before Bush launched his war. Iran will be similarly accused to justify a US attack. The US people were fooled by Bush's Iraq lies. They approved and re-elected him. As before, the media will repeat the lies justifying the US attack and back new 'patriot' laws suppressing civil liberties, conscription of Americans for war, and smothering any criticism or dissent. Congress and the Senate will fall over themselves praising Bush's leadership and heroism in this time of crisis. Bush's popularity will skyrocket.

And Leading World Into Global Disaster
Former Democratic nominee for President and Labor Party Presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche, claims martial law is right around the corner if Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons aren't removed from their stranglehold on government.
He likes to call President Bush “Georgie Porgie” and Vice President Cheney “Hitler in a bunker.” He considers Bush a half-wit and a “nominal President” while classifying Cheney, actually in control of the country, as trigger-happy and a Hitler-type mad-hatter.

Carefully analyse the Russian warning below. It is an ominous warning, but unlikely to deter the Bush Administration's advanced war plans for Iran.
All governments should know about Bush's policies on pre-emptive nuclear war, instructions to the Pentagon for a nuclear assault plan that might be used against Iran, taking out those nations the President decrees could become potential enemies, his 'Axis of Evil' speech and what it means, his Nuclear Posture Review, warning that up to 7 nations could be attacked with US nuclear weapons including Russia and China and the 3 crisis situations that could set it off: (1) The Middle East, (2) The Korean Peninsula (3) China and Taiwan. There are more. The self-justifying, self-fulfilling delusional aspects of Bush's reality, as he chooses to define and express in his recent speeches, also have to be taken into account. Never forget that Bush and Blair manufactured the hideous situation they studiously defend and continue in spite of being exposed as dangerous liars.

"We consider that it would be counter-productive and dangerous to use force, the serious consequences of which would be barely predictable." warning from the Russian Foreign Ministry to the Bush Administration about prospective plans to attack Iran.

Dr. Helen Caldicott warned earlier this year, that there would probably be a nuclear war during Bush second term.
Now Paul Craig Roberts shows how it can likely happen, if Bush starts a war with Iran.
..... Roberts says, Bush is crazy. However if Bush believes he is following some kind divine plan, and/or believes he is divinely inspired, enough people in our Christian culture share his view to help make it happen.

With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush’s war against Iraq and convinced that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the US Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

This is one of the best short analysis of who did, and who didn't, do the London bombings. It seems clear that so-called "Islamic terrorists" were not responsible.
It also seems clear that to build public support for the next big war, at least one and possibly more terrorist acts must be staged in the UK.

As the lies and misinformation continue to mount with regard to the London bombings, the corporate media both there and here continue to parrot the official story, regardless of the evidence showing that what happened in London seems to be something entirely different.
I thought some useful links showing you the gulf between reality and what the TV and newspapers are trying to make you believe is "the truth" are worth pointing out, so that you can make your own mind up as to what happened -- and what is happening.

There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities viewed in Washington as precursors to the manufacture of nuclear munitions. Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of military action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans--a step considered more likely with the recent election of arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president--but Bush, so far as is known, has not yet made up his mind in the matter. One thing does appear certain, however: Bush has given the Defense Department approval to develop scenarios for such an attack and to undertake various preliminary actions. As was the case in 2002 regarding Iraq, the building blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place.

. . . . evidence that the 9/11 attacks were were not as portrayed by the Bush Administration and the mass media.
I suggest that this tragedy and its implications, and the actions that have flowed from it, be of the greatest concern to responsible people everywhere. Two wars have been justified - Afghanistan and Iraq - on the basis of the official story of the 9/11 attack. The centre piece of the Bush Administration is the enormously expensive and destructive so-called "war on terror". More wars (perhaps on Iran and Syria and others) have been suggested.

Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Caught in the act: a revealing image, a stunning fact or an outstanding statement
....“Mossad agents managed to infiltrate during the government of Iyad Allawi thanks to the help of former Defense Minister Hazem Salan and former Interior Minister Fallah Nagib”. “They also placed members of the Baas Party in the Iraqi security, intelligence services and in financial posts”. After the killing of 500 Iraqi scientists and academics since the beginning of the war, Israel is trying to weaken Iraq and foster popular discontent against the Resistance, and also against the current Shiite government prior to the upcoming elections. And all this is happening surrounded by the silence of the international community...

The Downing Street memos have created such a stir that even Congress is rubbing its eyes and awakening from its long slumber to ask questions about the Iraq war: a hearing convened by antiwar Democrats, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has created quite a lot of buzz, generating headlines – and howls of outrage from all the usual suspects, as well as from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank and – surprise, surprise! – Howard "The Scream" Dean. Milbank snarks:
"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe. They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

It is 1962, at the height of the induced US paranoia over Cuba. Pentagon Hawks and their right-wing political allies
created a diabolically evil plan to covertly murder American citizens and blame Cuban agents in the US. The purpose was to provide a believable excuse that would anger Americans and the world, causing them to support a US war against Cuba. All top Pentagon generals approved this plan. The Kennedy Administration did not approve it.

In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods.

To justify staying in Iraq, it is appears that the US is committing acts of terrorism and blaming those they describe as "terrorists" for committing these acts. If the US starts a civil war between religious factions, it provides further reasons to stay on as "peacemakers".

and Accuses US Troops of Detonating Car Bombs and Falsely Accusing Militants
Al-Qaeda in Iraq issued a refutation on Saturday May 14th, 2005 of western claims “about the weakening of the mujahideen [in Iraq]”. The organization claims that, despite Western statements that the mujahideen are “weakened and stagnant” the militants are “continuing until the day of final judgment”. The message states that “the mujahideen did not weaken and did not become stagnant, but they are transforming with the prosperity of the almighty and the grace of their creature. They are enjoying the composure and the jihad and seeking martyrdom.”

Following this analysis, is a Pentagon paper on implementing Bush's new pre-emptive nuclear war doctrines.
It has much deeper implications than I first thought.
.....Bush, and his ally, the UK, both threatened to use nuclear weapons to accomplish their objectives - if they claimed their chosen enemy used what Bush and his allies decided was WMD. That is, Bush and his allies threatened to use nuclear weapons to accomplish military objectives in a war they started based on lies they invented.
I find that mind-blowingly evil and pathologically stupid.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

UNITED NATIONS: If the world does not take steps to limit access to technology for making nuclear bomb fuel, we could be headed for a nuclear apocalypse, the head of the United Nations atomic watchdog said yesterday.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, has proposed a 5-year moratorium on the enrichment of uranium and production of plutonium, but many countries have balked at the idea.
Speaking to reporters at a UN-sponsored conference on nuclear disarmament, ElBaradei said if more and more countries get hold of the technology to make bomb-grade uranium and plutonium, there will be many "virtual nuclear weapon states" that could quickly put together a bomb at any time.

..... A major goal of the Israeli government is military action against Iran. AIPAC, an American proxy of the Israeli government, with Franklin's help, has been pressuring members of Congress to support military strikes against Iran.

Here is a Pentagon paper on implementing Bush's new pre-emptive nuclear war doctrines.
It is a proposal on actions a local commander may request to initiate a limited nuclear war action.
Now the cowboys can really play God!
Real war games for the boys but the world they are gambling with is ours too.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

Blair deliberately suppressed UK Attorney-General's advice that the war was illegal. He also ignored Hans Blix's report to the UN that "no weapons of mass destruction had been found so far".

The Iraq war has erupted as a major Election issue after legal advice warning Tony Blair that the conflict breached international law was sensationally leaked.
The Government's refusal to disclose the advice has been one of the most controversial issues since the war ended, but The Mail on Sunday can now reveal for the first time exactly what counsel Mr Blair received.

Professor Michael Klare, for many years, an internationally recognised specialist in Oil politics and anti-war issues has written the following first-rate paper on US reasons for planning a war against Iran. It's oil again. He, UN WMD inspector Scott Ritter, and others have predicted the US will begin the war in June 2005 unless people stop them.
                  PAN meeting on Monday May 2 at 7.30pm at the Greens office on Bedford Row, Christchurch, NZ

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement.

To justify the war on Iraq and everything since, Bush's neocons wrote in their pre-9/11 Iraq war plans that "we need another Pearl Harbour". 9/11 gave it to them, and they were keen to start the pre-planned Iraq war from the day 9/11 happened. They did not have a shred of real evidence to support this war, so they created a litany of justifying lies. Other articles on this site under "US Elections" and "9/11 Questions" show US election fraud and doubt the 'official' story on the origins of 9/11.

This article below is particularly important because it reveals that the US itself creates many of the terrorism incidents and then blames other for these actions. Thus they are creating the excuse they need for increasing their military action.

The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Scott Ritter said in a previous article that the US will be ready to start bombing Iran in June 2005, if Bush orders it.
He points out "that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005."

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was
going.
The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.
When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the
Iranian nuclear programme.

If more unjust and illegal wars of aggression are looming on the horizon, it's our job as responsible people of conscience to stop them through either constitutional impeachment proceedings or collective civil disobedience -- which is to say, through our nonviolent noncooperation with evil

Scott Ritter said in a previous article that the US will be ready to start bombing Iran in June 2005, if Bush orders it.
He points out "that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005."

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was
going.
The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.
When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the
Iranian nuclear programme.

Step by step, Bush's 'US' is building its new Empire
Every nation not supportive of the continuing US crusade is a possible candidate for US assault.
Evan documents the insane doctrines of pre-emptive US war against anyone, anytime, anywhere the US unilaterally decides to attack. War policies are decided by a small coterie of un-elected, psychopathic neocons selected by President Bush. He has promoted them to the highest ranks of the US government. Bush does not listen to any criticism or alternative advice. They have been planning war against Iraq and other states for many years - long before the 9/11 attack.

Pentagon Confirms That Unilateral Preemptive Strikes Are Now US Policy
The Pentagon has released a new strategic plan, blandly titled "The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," that explicitly endorses unilateral preemptive strikes.
This is yet another indication that the Bush administration is dramatically accelerating away from longstanding doctrines that are upheld by both general international law and seemingly-important transatlantic coalitions like NATO.

Dr Roberts analysis is brilliant and spells out the true situation briefly and with clarity. However I don't think the neocon's want to "remake the Middle East in the American image". I think they want to make a barbarous wasteland and call it "freedom and democracy" in order to fool Americans into giving support for the slaughter.
I agree that the neocons want "to provoke a Pearl Harbour" and "may orchestrate a scenario that will suck the US into a wider war". That certainly coincides with my analysis based on years of studying the situation.

President Bush's invasion has turned Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for anti-U.S. terrorists, according to CIA Director Porter Goss in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Feb. 16. Goss' report was supported by Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the the Defense Intelligence Agency. Jacoby told the committee that "our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment." The Iraq insurgency, Jacoby reported, has grown "in size and complexity over the past year" with daily attacks increasing 240 percent.
The situation, in other words, is out of control. One hundred fifty thousand American troops are tied down by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents. The recent Iraq election was won by Shi'ites allied with Iran. U.S. casualties continue to mount, and our troops can seldom tell friend from foe.
Why isn't Bush looking for a way out of the greatest strategic blunder in American history? Why, instead, are Bush and his government doing all they can to spread the conflict into Syria and Iran?

Israel Air Force Commander-in-Chief Major General Eliezer Shakedi said Monday that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran in light of its nuclear activity.
But in a meeting with reporters, Shakedi wouldn't say whether he thought Israel was capable of carrying out such a mission alone, as it did when it bombed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981.
When asked whether Israel has a plan for the Iranian nuclear program, Shakedi replied, "You know that for obvious reasons, I won't say even a word."

U.S.-Israel plan to strike Irans nuclear sites finalized

Experts from the U.S. Defense Department, the Pentagon and Israel have put final touches to a plan to launch a military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, experts at the European Commission based in Brussels, revealed on Sunday.

Rice: U.S. Attack on Iran 'Not on Agenda' Now

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began her first foreign tour as America's top diplomat with a double-edged pledge Friday that Washington had no immediate plans to attack Iran.
"The question is simply not on the agenda at this point -- we have diplomatic means to do this," she said when asked if Washington was considering military action to force compliance from Tehran on its nuclear program.
Her response, assuaging fears of imminent military action, though leaving the door open for the future, was unlikely to reduce global tensions over Iran, which President Bush this week called the "world's primary state sponsor of terror."

Strike against Iran will have huge political costs

A US or Israeli military strike against Iran without UN authorisation would entail huge political costs and be seen as an act of aggression.
According to a short study by George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, such a strike would be less likely to cause Egypt and Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons than would allowing Iran to acquire such weapons. It would be seen as an act of aggression in violation of the enforcement processes envisioned, but ill-defined, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"IRAN WILL BE A "PLAYER"   Another Iranian official said the Europeans were simply trying to clear the way for themselves and Russia to have a monopoly on fuel supply in the region.

The Global Descent of America

The mentality that the Americans brought into their attack on the people of Falluja was well indicated by the commanders who said on record that Falluja was ' a house of Satan'.

Rice Arrives Just in Time to Oversee U.S. Decline

The first Black female U.S. Secretary of State will inevitably preside over a general and dramatic decline in American influence in the world, a process that accelerates with each passing week. So bizarre is American behavior – so disconnected from objective facts and from international conversation and evolving human standards of conduct – that Condoleezza Rice cannot escape becoming a caricature of diplomacy.

DOES BUSH MEAN IT? - YES THEY DO

Look at Dr. Roberts background (at end)consider his experience, and then read his analysis.
In "Does Bush Mean It?, Craig warns us, and shows his concern and reasons for believing "Yes they do"
Everyone should be as concerned as everyone wished Germans had been in 1938.
Except now the predictions are for far, far worse.

Does Bush Mean It?

Readers in numbers beyond my ability to reply individually have challenged me whether President Bush’s inaugural speech is a statement of his intentions or merely a celebration of himself and American democracy. Surely Bush doesn’t believe America has the power to remake the world in its own image other than by being an example for others to follow?
...The answer is that it doesn’t matter whether Bush believes, or even understands, what he said. The neoconservatives believe it, and they control the Bush administration.

Democracy - It's not God's gift

. . .For Bush, as for Zarqawi, political principles come from God. In his "God-drenched" inauguration speech (as Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, described it), Bush explained that people have inalienable rights because they "bear the image of the Maker of heaven and earth," and that America's mission to spread democracy around the globe comes directly from "the Author of liberty."

Bush's Inauguration Speech Promises

Death and Destruction for 'Freedom and Democracy'
In his inauguration speech, Bush equates American ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy to the Founding Fathers and to what Bush claims are his ideals and objectives....
He did not mention that the US, since World War II, has a long history of selecting oppressive dictators including Saddam, to install and support in different countries. Rather than liberate, Bush has authorised the killing of over 100,000 Iraqis, maiming, imprisoning, torturing and murdering many more and laying waste to the country. He continues to do this, including stepping up his mass destruction of cities like Fallujah. All this wanton killing and destruction, he continues to claim "is liberating the oppressed and giving them freedom, liberty and an elected government".

President Sworn-In to Second Term

Salvador Option Part of Plan?

The US is blaming Iran and Syria for helping and causing the increasing resistance in Iraq. They may spin that into excuses to make war on the two countries and perhaps others, thus fulfilling Bush's Jan 20th promise to bring "freedom and democracy" to the "oppressed people under totalitarian regimes" in the middle east and what US spin doctors call "regime change". If successful Bush will install selected personnel as "transitional governments" (as in Iraq). The US can call their new puppets "democratic" (as in Iraq) and continue as overlords who control and price most of the world's oil resources in the middle east.

Salvador Option

By any standard, the ongoing American occupation of Iraq is a disaster.
The highly vaunted US military machine, laurelled and praised for its historic march on Baghdad in March and April of 2003, today finds itself a broken force, on the defensive in a land that it may occupy in part, but does not control.
The all-out offensive to break the back of the resistance in Falluja has failed, leaving a city destroyed by American firepower, and still very much in the grips of the anti-American fighters.

Mass Murdering Iranians: Nearly Half of All Americans Agree

I have big problems with opinion polls, especially those conducted by the corporate news industry, but a recent survey by the Washington-based Opinion Research Corporation for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Results For America, which is a project of the Civil Society Institute, makes perfect sense, considering the mindset of at least half of all voting Americans, especially those in the Deliverance states. “A major new national opinion survey of 1,608 American voters released this week shows that only 42 percent would support the U.S. invasion of Iran to stop its nuclear program,” writes Anwar Iqbal for the World Peace Herald. “Nearly half—47 percent—of U.S. voters would oppose such a move and 11 percent are unsure.”

Why Terrorists May Be Coming Soon to a Mall Near You

If you live near a military base or installation, as I do here in New Mexico, you shouldn’t be surprised if terrorists attack, drive a suicide truck through the front gates and kill a whole lot of people.
Fair is fair, as they say, in love and war, especially war.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise because the Pentagon is now attacking the “military infrastructure” in Iran, as crack investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports. Of course, when the Pentagon says “military infrastructure,” it means not only missile sites, ammo depots, etc., but also humans, the largest and most crucial part of any “military infrastructure.”

THE COMING WARS     What the Pentagon can now do in secret.

“Rumsfeld will no longer have to refer anything through the government’s intelligence wringer,” the former official went on. “The intelligence system was designed to put competing agencies in competition. What’s missing will be the dynamic tension that insures everyone’s priorities—in the C.I.A., the D.O.D., the F.B.I., and even the Department of Homeland Security—are discussed. The most insidious implication of the new system is that Rumsfeld no longer has to tell people what he’s doing so they can ask, ‘Why are you doing this?’ or ‘What are your priorities?’ Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of it.”

Bush’s Cambodia: Syria in the Crosshairs

...Bush and Crew were very shrewd to hitch their anti-Arab Strausscon-Zionist wagon up to the “war on terrorism” in the wake of 9/11—in fact, some of us claim 9/11 was an “inside job” pulled off expressly for that reason, to arouse hatred and manufacture consent for massive violence against people who happen to be a threat to Israel’s “security,” that is to say millions of Arabs and Iranians....

US May Start War on Syria

Many articles on this site suggest that the US plans to dominate the Middle East, including wars on Iran and Syria, described by George Bush as part of the "Axis of Evil".
This article shows how the US is preparing for attacks on Syria by blaming it for backing the resistance in Iraq. The US describes any resistance to the illegal US invasion of Iraq as "terrorists". It continues to make more resistance in Iraq by bombing, poisoning, murder, torture and humiliation of Iraqis. Overextended in Iraq, the US plans to increase and broaden its attacks. Of particular significance, is the US rejection of Syrian offers of co-operation in order to build its justification for war on Syria.

U.S. Mulls Strikes on Syria

Bush administration hard-liners have been considering launching selected military strikes at insurgent training camps in Syria and border-crossing points used by Islamist guerrillas to enter Iraq in an effort to bolster security for the upcoming elections, according to former and current administration officials.

Israel's Nuclear Arsenal

Patrick Seale's article is brilliant, but does not take into account that Israel's nuclear weapons may be the cause of Arab reluctance to resist Israel aggression - such as the recent attack on Syria. Also, there is the massive US nuclear arsenal that can be used to intimidate Arab states. With Bush lowering the nuclear barrier and changing the nuclear rules of engagement to allow him to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons, the US is preparing for the possibility of using them, or threatening to use them, to impose US-Israeli plans to reorder the Middle East. Already the US and UK threatened to use nuclear weapons if they encountered WMD resistance to their illegal and unjustified attack on Iraq. If the US launches a new war against Syria or Iran as is threatened, they may place US forces in a an impossible situation, where the US will use nuclear weapons to avoid defeat.

...The new imperialists are paying a heavy price for their arrogant overreach. Iraq is proving the graveyard of the US army, and also the graveyard of US-Arab relations. Israel, in turn, has been brutalised by its occupation, turning it into a racist, quasi-fascist state, in the grip of religious fanatics. But the problems which the oppressors have brought upon themselves offer little consolation to their Arab victims.

Pentagon transformation is well underway. The U.S. military is increasingly being converted into a global oil protection service. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has a "strategy guy" whose job is to teach this new way of warfare to high-level military officers from all branches of services and to top level CIA operatives. Thomas Barnett is a professor at the Navy War College in Rhode Island. He is author of the controversial book The Pentagon’s New Map that identifies a "non-integrating gap" in the world that is resisting corporate globalization. Barnett defines the gap as parts of Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Central Asia all of which are key oil-producing regions of the world.