Tuesday 19 July 2005

Support we could well do without.

I think this is the kind of support we can well do without. Although, given what the Chatham House survey claims, this might be spin from someone at No 10?
Monday, July 18, 2005
51% of Americans want the U.S....to attack with military force: Republicans, favor attacks by a 7-to-1 margin
"51% Want Military Response to London Bombing Survey of 1,500 Adults July 15-17, 2005 July 18, 2005--In response to the terrorist bombings in London, 51% of Americans want the U.S. and its allies to attack with military force. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 25% believe the appropriate response is to withdraw US and British troops from Iraq.Just 7% believe the allies should negotiate with terrorists.As with most issues relating to the War on Terror, Republicans are largely united, while Democrats are divided.Republicans, by a 7-to-1 margin, say that military attacks are the appropriate response. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats share that view while 39% favor withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats favor negotiations.
There is a Pravda connection so this also could just be sweetbreads but it sounds convincing to me. Only thing not identified seems to be where this attack should be aimed. Cuba - ostensibly for high price of cigars. Argentina - finalising the Falklands thing. Possibilities - with this sort of mindset - seem limitless. Just so long as it does not have oil; I'm fed up with that conspiracy theory thread.
Don't like this?
Well, you will love this then
From The American Conservative, 1 August 2005, p.27Philip Giraldi writes:In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office,
has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on
Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous03:04

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete