General Betrayus and the rest of the cheerleaders for war are chomping at the bit, I guess the Frankenstein monster and Dracula called the MIC are running low on blood and it is almost a new dawn ( pun intended).

And Why SHOULD Iran trust the Great RENEGER (who even Petrays his own citizens, US) to "return" high-grade fuel, especially when Iran's operated within the non-proliferation treaty in any case? They Are RIGHT to insist upon simultaneity! Obomber, try fulfilling your nuclear non-escalation to your Own PEOPLE, instead.

You know, if things weren't kinda tight this month, I'd go to the Hammacher Schlemmer website and send Iran a factory-refurbished multiple-warhead ICBM myself-- I'm pretty sure they carry them.

It would be an olive branch of sorts. Revel in the irony!

Must be that old rooting-for-the-underdog thing-- oh, crap, that's how the US ended up in its ruinous marriage with Israel; that, and the US being either still drunk or hopelessly hung over out of its mind after VE and VJ days.

When I first started checking out political websites after the hijacked 2000 election, I was surprised to discover so-called progressive hawks.

Before they had occasion to rally 'round Bush's "Good War" in Afghanistan, they also espoused the necessity of a non-nuclear Iran.

I quickly adjusted to it, but for a while I was flabbergasted that people who claimed to be anti-exceptionalist and anti-triumphalist would strike a "common-sense" tone that of course, "we" don't want a country like Iran, run by doubtful and dangerous nuts, to have nukes.

They weren't bothered by any sense of hypocrisy, and argued that at least the US (and Israel) are RESPONSIBLE nuclear powers-- but IRAN? C'mon!

To me, it's a "better the dangerous nuts one knows" position at best.

· Yr Obd't Servant

One country has used Nukes, one country needs to be restrained, it is the USA. Its Military is a bloated boil on the face of the world.

"Petraeus said the administration intends to "send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have... about Iran's activities in the nuclear program."

Speak for yourselves warmongers. I'm more seriously concerned about you than about Iran.

Why does the article in chief follow the ordinary propaganda forumula?

The first premise is that there exists a right among the US, either on its on or in conjunction with the UN Security Council to "halt Iran's nuclear program." Iran is a signatory to the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus has a right to enrich uranium. So, the start point for the article, and for most writtten in Western journalistic sources is based on a false coice.

Next we are presented with an ultimatum premise, again that presumes, but does not explain by what claim of right is anyone giving Iran an ultimatum to halt uranium enrichment and agree to UN terms on anything. By the way, most of the countries in the world do not appear to support what is being done to Iran in the making of ultimatums. That said, the countries that are involved in such doings are in the West and are disproportionately pwerful, relative to the majority of countries in the world today.

So, in the main, what is being done to Iran is a power-play, pure and simple, and unacknowledged.

The next issue involves misrepresentation. We are told: "...the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, said it suspected that Tehran might already be trying to develop a nuclear warhead." Well, while expression of suspicion may have been included in the IAEA statement, there was more; namely: The IAEA found that Iran was adhering to its treaty obligations, both now and in the past and that it had no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear warhead, something that Iran has disavowed.

And, while Iran has announced it intends to enrich uranium to the level of 20%, it has a treaty right to do just that.

“The offer would have seen the uranium returned to Iran in a high-grade form for use in a medical research reactor, but Tehran rejected the plan.”

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the exchange had to be ‘simultaneous,’ an Iranian stance that has led to a deadlock over the deal.”

Just goes to show how paranoid those mullahs are. Why would they doubt the Americans’ and Zionists’ solemn word of honor to return Iranian uranium after enriching it? And what ingrates. After we gave them twenty-five years of stability, law and order under our proxy state terrorist, Shah Reza Pahlevi, they act like they don’t trust us anymore.

But you’ll be happy to know that right now your tax dollars are hard at work laying the groundwork for another U.S. stooge terror regime, despite the Iranians’ ungracious attitude. That is, if there’s anything left of Iran besides the oil deposits, when the U.S. and the apartheid state get done with it.

I just pray to God that Obama attacks Iran and saves his presidency.

There's no doubt about America, is there? Here they are with the world's biggest army and the biggest stockpile of nukes sanctimoniously trying to dictate to Iran what they can and can't do!

I didn't notice America sanctioning the life out of the Israelis who mysteriouisly got themselves a nuclear arsenal. Funny thing that. One could almost think that a double-standard applies.

America won't be happy unless it starts a nuclear war. It is a nation with a deathwish. Unfortunately the rest of the world will die with it. Seems rather ironic, perhaps even unfair!

www.dangerouscreation.com

The REAL news is about the people's economic revolution. The people are taking production back into their own hands, back to local ownership. Let the MSM spew propaganda till the cows come home, but the people remain aware of the REAL news.

Amerikkka yet again!

"Petraeus said the administration intends to "send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have... about Iran's activities in the nuclear program."

- That's not even a full sentence. What does it mean: to "send the the kind of signal ... that the countries have ... about Iran's activities"? - It means nothing. It's utterly meaningless: "the countries have a signal"??

Should Iran feel worried that "countries have a signal", and no word of what the signal consists of? - Iran should be rather calmed by this: the threat by their main self-declared "enemy" (US) isn't even coherent.

It brings the notion of a "veiled threat" to a new level: "If you don't do as I say, we'll have the kind of signal!"

- Ooh, now's the time to worry, sure, but about the sender's sanity. Such "pressure"... Maybe Petraeus should seek psychiatric counsel, before he unravels deeper into gibberish thinking.

*

And, again, the Pentagon pretence to speak on behalf of "the entire world". Poppycock! "If you're not nice, I'll fetch the entire world! And my entire world is so much bigger than your entire world, just you wait and see!" Childish nonsense, from Mr. Petraeus.

There is no way on Earth Iran can TRUST The USA or the West to return any uranium they might provide to the same.

They did this once before with France and France refused to return the uranium.

Iran has agreed to virtually every demand made by the West and every time they did so the United States of America then upped the stakes and made further demands.

Look to Iraq as an example. They published a huge document detailing how the WMD programs were dismantled and the USA seized that Document and refused to publish large parts of it. They then agreed to allow Weapon inspectors in as the West demanded and this was no longer "good enough" for the United States of America.

The Government of the United States of America is the least honest and most duplicitous on Earth. Just ask the Native Americans. For that matter just ask the people who voted Democrat or Republican.

If Red China gave a solemn promise not to attack a soveriegn state and the United States of America made that same promise, Red China would be truer to its word.

Quoting Petreaus is like quoting Goering.

Petreaus, Obama, Clinton, Netanyahu and their ilk -- all talk with the POSE of being "reasonable"...

but in reality are like a bunch of Bullies having a TANTRUM because someone doesn't want to be Bullied....

Gaza was probably a test run minus the nukes for Iran.

Is their really going to be a nuclear attack on Iran?

I think only israel would do the up front nuking and Obomber will do the whitewashing like he has been doing.

Nowhere in the piece is it mentioned that Iran is not in violation of any international law. We commit war crimes and crimes against humanity every day. Israel itself is a war crime.

There are two ways to a better world: either

1) We retire all nuclear weapons, or
2) A strong Islamist nation develops tons of nukes and declares that an attack against ANY Muslim nation is an attack against them... to create some balance and give birth to respect for the quarter of the world's population that is Muslim.

Are we really, really sick of the goddam lies yet?

Face it. The United States elites are pissed off because some Islamists took over a strategic part of the world in a well-designed and near-bloodless coup in 1979 and they are still there despite an eight-year war the U.S. set up with Iraq. And then we had our ally, Saddam, hanged. That really contributed to our international reputation as arbiters of justice.

What's the new mantra: "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy"? Geez, almost Talmudic. War on three fronts.

-30-

Great comments posted on how bad the US bellicose foreign policy and the MSM are leading the war machine to more confrontations. But the critical question is what are you or anyone going to do to stop the US-israhell Fourth Reich from achieving pre-emptive strikes agains any faux threat from anyone?

Nothing.

Of course, I like the idea of assassinations. If it's good enough for israhell it's good enought for anyone, particularly patriots.

Does anyone else get the irony here? Last week we had Hillary Clinton on her trip around the Gulf stirring things up, to ensure more arms sales, while laying it on thick with a trowel, raising the bar of rhetoric, fear and accusation, calling Iran a “military dictatorship”. Yet here we are a week later we have a US general making pronouncements on US foreign policy and what the next steps are. General David Petraeus ; "That puts us in a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the pressure track. That's the course on which we are embarked now,"

Now tell me, which country is a dictatorship run by the military? I was under the impression generals where there to take orders from the administration and not to speak on its behalf.

I can think of some nuclear armed countries involved in wars of aggression, illegal occupation, war crimes, state sponsored terrorism, as well as developing, possessing and using or threatening the use of, illicit biological chemical and nuclear WMD in contravention of international treaties. One could make a convincing argument posing that such countries are rogue states that should be sanctioned. One would expect the press to reflect for ordinary people’s if not the global community’s on their concern, anger and dismay, yet all we hear is the monotony of unfounded hysteria about Iran, a country that has not aggressed another in over 500 years. Does the Pentagon write this rubbish for AFP too?

To me it is pretty obvious where “regime change” is needed! But by the time Americans wake up from being too lazy, dumb or scared to do anything about it, it will be too late for them to act even to save themselves. They, the Americans are already slaves who have lost their country to those back-room gangsters, the ones who own the MIC along with the Fed, the judiciary, the Senate, the House, and the administration. The only question is, if these criminals will manage to start yet another war for the profits of their corporate interests.

I think Pepe Escobar's analysis in 'Pipelineistan' is about right on and sabre rattling toward Iran might have as much to do with reining in / blocking China as anything else. Aferall, AfPak is about pipelines, among other things, and it seems as though pipelines between Iran and Chinese ports are moving along, as per Escobar's writeup, while we carpet bomb / drone bomb the future construction sites for our pipelines in AfPak. Chomsky said somewhere that controlling Iraq is all about controlling the spigot, and making a depleted Uranium mess out of Iran would allow us to control the spigot for our biggest Far East competitor.

Threatening Iran might have very little at all to do with nuclear anything. I'm actually far from convinced it has anything to do with Uranium or plutonium...maybe more to do with natural gas pipe lines. Who knows.