Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept. 11 attacks

[RickSp]

msn

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, Wednesday compared the threat from Iran’s nuclear programs to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. “Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”

How stupid do they think Americans are? Using 9/11 to justify another war? Didn't we learn anything from the last one? Unfortunately, Americans may be that stupid. Only time will tell.

[Osborn F Enready]

I was chuckling at this tactic earlier myself.

They really have faith in their ability to control the sheeple with media scare tactics and propaganda.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I was chuckling at this tactic earlier myself. They really have faith in their ability to control the sheeple with media scare tactics and propaganda.

Yeah. It's important to mention 9-11 whenever possible. They probably say it in their sleep.

Grandpa h.

[samsara15]

As long as you can keep peddling the same snake oil, why change?

[Zeebadee]

Iran may well be a very dangerous threat to the U.S. Unfortunately, bush has cried wolf before. He's not even going to be able to sell war with Iran to our lackey British friends. We are liable to be dragged into war by Israel (to whom we seem to be lackeys) launching a preemptive strike. It will be a "coalition" of two for the next war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee Iran may well be a very dangerous threat to the U.S. Unfortunately, bush has cried wolf before.

Well, that's half of the equation. The missing half is that we are a very dangerous threat to Iran--and that's something we won't let Iranians forget any time soon.

Grandpa h.

[bugsbunny04]

How else would you describe the threat of a nuclear weapon being detonated in an American city? 9/11 is a legit analogy, even if it is worn half to pieces by being used as a justification for everything from why we had to kick Saddams ass to why the neighbors down the street bought another dog. On the other hand, I dont think that we, as Americans, are threatened in any meaningful way by Iran. Even if they did have a bomb, Id bet half my sign on bonus the anti-semetic fruit cakes would bomb israel.

I personally think we should just turn Israel loose on them, but if we have to get in there and go to Iran next, I'll be ready to kick there ass.

[Boetie]

Below is an email I got.

Uncle Chutzpah and His Willing Executioners on the Dire Iran Threat: With Twelve Principles of War Propaganda in Ongoing Service

By Edward S. Herman

Back at the time of a major Bush-1 “drug war” in 1989, Hodding Carter pointed out that with increasing attention to the newly declared “crisis” by the administration and media, the public’s estimate of the importance of the drug problem rose spectacularly. “Today’s big news is the drug war. The president says so, so television says so, newspapers and magazines say so, and the public says so.” Today’s big news is the possibility that Iran, the Little Satan, might some day acquire a nuclear weapon: the administration says so, the media say so, and now three times as many people regard Iran as the U.S.’s greatest menace than four months ago and 47 percent of the public agrees that Iran should be bombed if needed to prevent its acquiring any nuclear weapon capability.

The system works this mobilization process like a well-oiled propaganda machine--which it is--and it can apparently sell almost anything in the way of justifying external violence to a large fraction of the populace, at least in the short run. The attack on Iraq was a remarkable achievement in this respect, given that it was built on a series of lies about Iraq weapons, links, and threats that were extremely dubious at best, a number clearly false and even quite silly (the mushroom cloud and threat to U.S. national security); and given that the actions taken were in blatant violation of the UN Charter. To put this over required tacit collusion between the administration and mainstream media, with the latter serving as de facto propaganda arms of the war-makers.

We may recall that the justification for NATO’s bombing of the Serb TV broadcasting facilities in 1999 (killing 16 people) was that it was a propaganda arm of the Serb military. On that logic, accepted by respectable opinion and Carla Del Ponte on behalf of the Yugoslavia Tribunal, in a just world, where Bush and company would surely be brought to trial for manifold war crimes in the Iraq aggression-occupation, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, Bill Keller, Thomas Friedman, Donald Graham, Leonard Downie, Jr., Richard Cohen, George Will, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O’Reilly, and numerous others would be in the dock alongside them.

The further remarkable thing is that, despite their semi-apologies for betraying the public interest and their readers in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq--at least at the New York Times and Washington Post--the media are going through the same routines of propaganda service in the buildup to a possible attack on Iran. They quite generally avoid mentioning the similarity of the arguments made earlier, or that the administration lied egregiously earlier, or their own earlier hyper-gullibility. A tabula rasa is required if the system calls for serial propaganda service that entails the serial conveying of disinformation and suppression of inconvenient evidence. The “Drumbeat sounds familiar” to Simon Tisdall in the London Guardian (March 7, 2006), but not to the servants of power in the U.S. media.

Note I cut almost all of the email out due to limitations.

Also note the above fits nicely with the manufactured consent thread, Athena had started.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: grandpa Well, that's half of the equation. The missing half is that we are a very dangerous threat to Iran--and that's something we won't let Iranians forget any time soon. Grandpa h.

We're barely holding our own in Iraq, even bush isn't stupid enough to think we can take on Iran at the same time unless we are forced to. U.S. military support to an Israel preemptive strike against Iran would unite the middle east against us like nothing else ever could. The economic consequences of OPEC dumping their dollar holdings would be devastating to the U.S. economy. The only way we could really threaten Iran militarily is with EU support, something very unlikely to happen.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bugsbunny04 How else would you describe the threat of a nuclear weapon being detonated in an American city?

Well lets see. Pakistan is one bullet away from giving Osama Bin Laden an atomic bomb. How many times have Islamists tried to assassinate Mubarek? Four or five? I lose count.

North Korea not only has atomic weapons but also ballistic missle systems that could drop an atomic bomb on San Franscisco and with boosters, possibly Chicago.

India also has the bomb as does Israel, Russia, Britian and France. But the real danger is Iran, big bad scary Iran, if you believe the Bush lies, which you obviously do.

So after launching one disastrous war based on claims about WMD, Bush wants to launch a second based on claims of WMD, except that this time he is threatening a nation that can actually defend itself. What part of this isn't insane?

[bishop]

i've also had an uneasy laugh over the administration's attempts to ratchet up the fear with iran... they're obviously using the same-assed rhetoric they used to justify their little detour into iraq.. unfortunately for them, i don't think congress or the public is really listening to them with both ears.

i look at it as the administration flailing - trying to do anything and everything they know how to do (which isn't much more than fear/war-mongering) in order to save bush's horrible approval ratings.. the uneasiness is that, as emporer in chief, he still has the royal power to fuck up royally. although, with his approval so low right now, any serious misstep like a surprise attack on iran could result in bush being given an early exit out of office.


on a side note, i'm fondly reminded of the public revolt in serbia - where protesters stormed their legislative building and set it on fire. i'd love to see the same here, along with throwing a couple of the most corrupt politicians out the windows..

[Osborn F Enready]

I concur Bishop.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Boetie's article The further remarkable thing is that, despite their semi-apologies for betraying the public interest and their readers in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq--at least at the New York Times and Washington Post--the media are going through the same routines of propaganda service in the buildup to a possible attack on Iran. They quite generally avoid mentioning the similarity of the arguments made earlier, or that the administration lied egregiously earlier, or their own earlier hyper-gullibility. A tabula rasa is required if the system calls for serial propaganda service that entails the serial conveying of disinformation and suppression of inconvenient evidence. The “Drumbeat sounds familiar” to Simon Tisdall in the London Guardian (March 7, 2006), but not to the servants of power in the U.S. media.

I wonder how those entities would respond to those accusations?


Thanks for posting that. I think that little bit of information had been overlooked up until now. A very timely observation.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp msn How stupid do they think Americans are? Using 9/11 to justify another war? Didn't we learn anything from the last one? Unfortunately, Americans may be that stupid. Only time will tell.

That is not much but words-exchange on political forum.

U.S. is not going to get engaged (physically) in any potential military conflict on Iranian soil, as long as events in Iraq make a turn in a right direction.
Even though, no real plans to enter Iran, at all (!)
It would take several years before such option may be taken under consideration seriously, unless Iran tries to go after U.S. points of interests.

As of today, there are political skirmishes over nuclear developement and/or technology in Iran. I like to watch those guys. They fight like big "Macho-Camacho" :) , and not much behind it.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: RickSp How stupid do they think Americans are?

I thought Sonny Bono was bottom of the barrel. But, we're dumb enough to have a washed up singer with a mullet as an ambassador.

[rmnunez]

There is an analogy. Both 911 and Iran involve threats, yesterday (before Bolton spoke) the Iranians for the first time agreed to diplomatic interaction at the ambassadorial level with the US (though not in Iran yet) for the first time since they seized the US embassy in 1979. Curiously, in so doing, reference to the US was still reportedly by the expression "the Great Satan".

Both OBL and his minions and the Ayatollahs and theirs, regard the US as the top enemy, followed closely by Israel. Both have expressed threats to the US and their desire to see them erradicated. Both are inspired by Islamic fundamentalism and both have resorted to terrorism in pursuit of their religiously premised goals.

[GinghamDog]

Any military involvement in Iran would be sure to stabalize the region as a whole. We have been unable to secure Iraq, a country which was largely destitute before we enetered it. The U.S. is on the verge of having a swath of countries from Syria to Afghanistan which are Islamic and anti-U.S. In the swath Pakistan stands out as having an excellent chance of becoming a Islamic anti-U.S. nulcear power, as Rick pointed out earlier. Still as far as new members to that nuclear club maybe they feel it is better to have a destabilized region as a whole, instead of having controlling nation states with access to nuclear arms.

The big problem being, however, that any military action in Iran would be sure to disrput already strained global oil supplies, cause a global recession, and destroy the U.S.'s ability to wage military action on multiple fronts.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: GinghamDog Any military involvement in Iran would be sure to stabalize the region as a whole.

I think you meant DE-stabilize? In that I agree and it's mostly our fault.

We have been unable to secure Iraq, a country which was largely destitute before we enetered it. The U.S. is on the verge of having a swath of countries from Syria to Afghanistan which are Islamic and anti-U.S. In the swath Pakistan stands out as having an excellent chance of becoming a Islamic anti-U.S. nulcear power, as Rick pointed out earlier. Still as far as new members to that nuclear club maybe they feel it is better to have a destabilized region as a whole, instead of having controlling nation states with access to nuclear arms.

I see little difference, except with actual nations using nuclear weapons they give us something to shoot BACK at. If Al-qaeda uses a nuclear device or Iran does the result would be the same. But since you can't lob a missile at us and then take your country and hide behind a tree you can bet you wouldn't HAVE a country for long.

The big problem being, however, that any military action in Iran would be sure to disrput already strained global oil supplies, cause a global recession, and destroy the U.S.'s ability to wage military action on multiple fronts.

We can barely wage war on this ONE front, much less multiple fronts, and some of those other wars might be with people who can fight back. That "ability to fight a war in two distinct theatres" was bullshit from the go and Bush went ahead and PROVED it by showing the reality of the situation in Iraq.

[rmnunez]

What multiple fronts, Scribbler? Iran is next to as in adjacent to Iraq, they share a nice, geographically unchallenging, easily overcome and relatively defenseless border. Syria is close at hand too, from Afghanistan the US can control Pakistan and flank the Iranians big time. The accumulated military firepower the US has concentrated in the region suggests foresight in long-criticised defense investments like Diego Garcia.

I have no doubt the Iranian air force, such as it is, will be decimated if they don't visibly "stand down" on sight. The possibility of naval engagement involves ridiculous scenarios of zodiaked mujahedins crashing into the waterlines of united statian battleships placidly parked in local harbours. The infantry shouldn't pose much of a problem either, their stamina and and bravery in battle can't be evaluated, US forces are more mobile faster, better communicated and more heavily armed, they also would enjoy complete air control over the Iranians.

I'd give it 3 days of "official" resistance, a slew of successive captures and surrenders and then a rapid degeneration into a sort of insurgency situation which will conclude once US forces document, secure and destroy or confiscate the specific IAEA-breaching materials and equipment, ship it to Vienna and immediately regroup at the border, 3 weeks tops.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp North Korea not only has atomic weapons but also ballistic missle systems that could drop an atomic bomb on San Franscisco and with boosters, possibly Chicago.

I'd sure like to see you back up this claim about N. Korean missile systems. I think you're way off base on this one.