Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scott Ritter: The US war with Iran has already begun (anyone confirm?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:10 PM
Original message
Scott Ritter: The US war with Iran has already begun (anyone confirm?)
If Scott Ritter says this, I believe it.
But can anyone confirm Scott Ritter actually said this?
It appears the primary source is Al Jazeera (The Fox News of The Middle East).

Scott Ritter Says "The US war with Iran has already begun"
Analysis by Mark Radulich

“You and I are not cut from the same piece of wood,” he said. “I’m a conservative Republican, and you are liberals. You’re pacifists, and I’m a warrior.”

These are the words of former U. N. weapons inspector and former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter. He has recently written an opinion piece that was published on AlJazeera.net that states, "The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran."

On those covert operations, Ritter writes that, "The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

More:
http://www.legendgames.net/showstory.asp?page=blognews/stories/WN0000243.txt


Also:

The US war with Iran has already begun
By Scott Ritter

The US war with Iran has already begun
by Scott Ritter
Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT
(In Al Jazeera)

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.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

More:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. nothing like a sortie into foreign lands to unite their people
against us, completely.

Can you imagine if China delivered an ultimatum to us, and then started dismantling our nuclear reactors?

No wonder they want the bomb so desperately - they have resources and sovereignty that they feel compelled to protect by whatever means necessary.

I just hope we can get through the next few years without an all out WWIII breaking out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I wouldn't give Iran a "bye" just over sovereignty...
The Iranian government has been unstable at best in the past 50 years. A nuclear capability is extremely dangerous in the hands of a government that is blinded by justification. They spend millions to topple a 3000 year old Buddhist monument because it's not Muslim. what is the sense of that? They take the United States Embassy by storm and held the hostages for more than a year. The people in power there at NUTS!

Nuclear Iran is a threat to anyone within shooting distance that isn't not only Muslim, but fundamentalist Muslim. Especially Israel.

The United States needs to work closer with the UN to talk Iran down from the ledge. John Bolton, if appointed, will probably be the one to make sure that doesn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. just the same, our heavy handed policies almost seem
designed to initiate war.

I wonder how much a secure pipeline network through Iran would be worth if we control all the oil production in the region?

Hmmmmmm. Bet you anything successful diplomacy runs counter to that goal.

I am very cynical - but I think a much stronger western diplomatic presence for the past twenty years would currently be yielding the commercian and trade "westernization" necessary to promote a democratic economy and by extension, a more democratized political system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I've been saying that for years! Bush thinks he's The Antichrist!
That is seriously what he wants.

Bush WANTS to fail and trigger The War of the Apocalypse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Iran - Commerce? Yes...Democracy? Nooooo....
The struggle with fundamentalism is to engrained for that society to truely be fully aware.

What makes you think that the Iranian goverment wouldn't just sieze the western owned pipeline? They've proven that the Americans will just buckle under pressure and in the "Arms for Hostages" deal under Ronald Reagan, the US has proved that it will also back stab its own citizens for money and power.

Diplomacy does work, but it is imperative that this administration does not have any more than a back seat support roll for the UN. This WH has proven time and again that they have NO diplomatic skill what-so-ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Madeleine Albright
Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 08:27 AM by sui generis
I would say there is an exception to your statement. I don't agree with all of her stances, particularly Israel versus the "Palestinian Terrorists" (her phrasing), but she was/is a scholar of diplomacy and ultimately an educated diplomat.

This payola Whitehouse however is not to be trusted.

There are several stages of diplomacy, starting from discussions and summits with timed agreements to political and economic sanctions to embargoes to force, and the ONLY reason we spend limited resources and global goodwill on diplomacy at all is when our national interests are at stake.

on edit:

Regarding economy: consumerism not just of goods but of information changes what conditions people are willing to allow in their lives. Women, for the most part, do not enjoy being stoned to death for getting pregnant from rape, and women, for the most part as humans will inevitably lend their voice to a process that helps determine their future and protections in a society by supporting institutions that give them greater voice: voting in elections for candidates that support them. Satellite TV, MTV (believe it or not, South Asia MTV), the internet, and an environment safe for tourism open these cultural exposures, and it is inevitable in ten years or 25 or 50 that they will move towards democracy with more or less bloodshed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anakie Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I think it was the Taliban
in Afghanistan that toppled the Buddhist monuments. As for your comment
"A nuclear capability is extremely dangerous in the hands of a government that is blinded by justification" please explain to me the difference between Irans possible nukes and America's nukes in the hands of an idiot who believes in Armageddon and is held hostage by the lunar right christian fascists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. You're right about the Buddhist statues...
for some reason I thought it was after the Taliban were disbanded by the military.

America going nuclear in any way would yield an international backlash that would topple the administration. I think the WH knows that. Sure Bush et-al are Rapture crazy, but to nuke a country is political suicide...but then again he is a lame duck...

I guess I agree with you on both statements. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Buddhist monument was toppled in Afghanistan by Taliban
"They spend millions to topple a 3000 year old Buddhist monument because it's not Muslim."

I don't remember hearing about the Iranian government doing anything like this. If you have a link, I'd be glad to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I got my info wrong.
Good eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Yeah, a LOT of it...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmcon007 Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. WW III?
God, I hope not. Our "coalition of the not-so-willing" would all fit in a phone booth. Hell, Laura and Bar would have to grab a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Don't worry! If WW3 breaks out, BushCo will emerge from their bunkers
and rebuild the world in their image.

Nothing to see here, no profit to be made, no ultramad powergrabbers in sight, nothing to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i miss america Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Common Dreams published it yesterday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Shit. I have to believe it now.
Edited on Tue Jun-21-05 05:05 PM by IanDB1
On edit: I just revised my Personal Believability Index down to 98% due to the fact that Common Dreams seems to still be providing incomplete information about the Citgo Buycott.

<snip>

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

What day in June? I had money on June 6th, at 6:06 AM or PM.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. THanks, I was having a bad day
this sucks, but it puts it into prespective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkat65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. WTF?
Edited on Tue Jun-21-05 04:55 PM by kitkat65
"...President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran."

On those covert operations, Ritter writes that, "The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labeled as a terrorist organization, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq."

So terrorists organizations are okay but only when they're working for the U.S?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Ever heard of the KLA?
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jim3775 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. The Azerbijan part of the story checks out.
Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 09:39 AM by jim3775
As i posted last night:

Link

"USA plans to expand military presence in Azerbaijan, promises $100mil for Caspian guard


US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Azerbaijan (an Asian republic of the former USSR) on April 12th. It became Rumsfeld's second visit to the republic in four months -- that is why it can hardly be treated as a formal visit of no particular importance.

(snip)

The first reason includes the transportation of the Caspian oil and the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which is directly connected with Mr Rumsfeld's department.
Secondly, the USA is interested in establishing mobile army bases on the territory of Azerbaijan, which is stipulated in the plan to re-deploy US troops in Europe and Asia.

As for the oil pipeline is concerned, there has been a certain plan elaborated for the implementation of security measures. The USA is ready to assign not less than $ 100 mm during the coming ten years for the development of the so-called Caspian Guard (founded in the autumn of 2003). Guaranteeing security to the pipeline, which is currently undergoing the construction process, will be the prime goal of the Caspian Guard."


They are starting to guard the oil pipeline. It could be possible that they are preparing a counter-insurgency to protect the pipelines once they have started pumping Iranian oil. Also the line "the USA is interested in establishing mobile army bases on the territory of Azerbaijan, which is stipulated in the plan to re-deploy US troops in Europe and Asia. is very important. This would explain why there has been so much talk about closing bases lately, moving manpower away from Europe and the US and into the middle east. And not just the middle east but a country that borders Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC