Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






The Chain


Truthdig Bazaar
Requiem

Requiem

By Frances Itani
$24.00

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

U.S. Troops Authorized to Kill Iranians in Iraq

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 26, 2007
Soldier
from spacewar.com

The president has authorized U.S. troops to “kill or capture” Iranian soldiers and intelligence operatives found in Iraq, and the administration has even pressured military commanders to take advantage of the policy, according to multiple sources who spoke with The Washington Post.

The authorization is meant to intimidate Iran, but some in the government worry it could lead to a broader conflict.


Washington Post:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The “catch and release” policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran’s regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country’s nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

“There were no costs for the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Spinoza, January 28, 2007 at 1:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The US command is trying to exclude a ground operation: Iran has a strong army and the US forces are likely to suffer massive casualties. This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already finds himself in a difficult situation. It does not take a ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran, to reverse the development of the country, to cause panic, and to create a political, economic and military chaos. This can be accomplished by using first the nuclear, and subsequently the conventional means of warfare. Such is the purpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer to the Iranian coast.

What resources for self-defense does Iran have? They are considerable, but incomparably inferior to the US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems. Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran has no guaranteed protection from air raids.

The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks.

Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.

At the same time all of the above sends a signal to the pro-Western opposition and to a fraction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s elite to get ready for the coming developments. The US hopes that an attack on Iran will inevitably result in a chaos in the country, and that it will be possible to bribe some of the Iranian generals and thus to create a fifth column in the country.

Of course, Iran is very different from Iraq. However, if the aggressor succeeds in instigating a conflict between the two branches of the Iranian armed forces – the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the army – the country will find itself in a critical situation, especially in case at the very beginning of the campaign the US manages to hit the Iranian leadership and delivers a nuclear strike or a massive one by conventional warfare on the country’s central command.

Today, the probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say “Yes” to the US President.

General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies

Report this

By Spinoza, January 28, 2007 at 1:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran.

How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia, at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes, and at worst – as in the case of the aggression against Yugoslavia – its response will be something like “though by this the US makes a mistake, the victim itself provoked the attack”.

Europe will react in essentially the same way. Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several other countries to the nuclear aggression will be stronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutely sure of this).

The UN means nothing in this context. Having failed to condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council effectively shared the responsibility for it. This institution is only capable to adopt resolutions which the Russian and also the French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactly the opposite sense – as authorizing their aggression.

Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under the Iranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance will become more active. Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to provocations to justify their aggression, suffer some tolerable damage, and then the outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution.

Some people tend to believe that concerns over the world’s protests can stop the US. I do not think so. The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: “Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they have to do it?”

But they did it. They ignored the international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes, there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly what the aggressors wanted – Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, and Serbia is colonized – NATO officers have set up their headquarters in the country’s ministry of defense.

The same things happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the revenues of their military-industrial complex.

The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.

continued

Report this

By Spinoza, January 28, 2007 at 1:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20070124&articleId=4581

Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack

by General Leonid Ivashov

Global Research, January 24, 2007 Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia) http://en.fondsk.ru/

In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by “any Persian Gulf country”.

“Any country” mostly refers to Iran. The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots.

So, the preparations for a new US aggression entered the completion phase. The executions of S. Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a “disguise operation” for the efforts of the US strategists to deliberately escalate the situation both around Iran and in the entire Middle East.

Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US did order to hang the former Iraqi leader and his associates. This shows that the US has adopted irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into three warring pseudo-states – the Shiite, the Sunnite, and the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that the situation of a controlled chaos will help it to dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and other strategically important oil transportation routes.

The most important aspect of the matter is that a zone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at the core of the Middle East, and that the countries neighboring Iraq – Iran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) – will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve the problem of completely destabilizing the region, a task of major importance for the US and especially for Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge.

However it is not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign while Iraq and Afghanistan are not “pacified” (the US lacks the resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of the above, the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan.

Continued

Report this

By Outraged, January 27, 2007 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Paul: (Post 49866)


In reference to your post copied below:


“But then again, if W lowered taxes for libs only and raised them on big, nasty corporations and those hated rich folks (who are mean and who support Haliburton, and big oil, and profits), you libs would still complain.  You will complain no matter what W does.  If he retired, you’d complain.  If he pardoned you, you’d complain.  If he raised your taxes (as Hilary will), you’d complain.  He actually lowered your taxes—big time, and you still complained.  If he eliminated the deficit, you’d compalined.  If he raised the minimum wage, you’d complain.  If he wins the war on terror, you’d complain.  If he won the lottery and donated his winnings to Truthdig, you’d complain.  If he saves the free world, you’d complain.  If he saved the earth in a battle against forces from another universe, you’d complain.  If he saved the galaxy, you’d complain.  If it turns out he is really Jesus Christ (and you had irrefutable evidence that He was), you’d complain.  Of course, we all know that your complaints are irrelevant.  You’re liberals—that is your nature.  It makes you feel better to complain.  So, go ahead, and start complaining about this piece.  Let’s haer you do what you do best—attack me and complain.”

Well Paul, you be sure to let us know if any of these “ifs” you mentioned above actually materialize.  By the way, how’s the weather in La-La Land?

Report this

By LiveFree, January 27, 2007 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is really ironic about the authorizing soldiers to kill Iranians is that now more US soldiers are getting killed in IRAQ. People wake up, please. There were 160,000 US soldiers to over 3 million people in that country do you think that US is winning. These soldiers are sacrifical lambs by this government. I say government because both Republicans and Democrats have allowed these soldiers to get slaughtered, yes I said slaughtered. Many of you may not agree but do the math the numbers are grim.

What most Americans are ignorant to is that Bush does not want these soldiers to come back alive because they will reveal the atrocities and he does not want to have to deal with these soldiers during his term in regards to maiming, dying and all sorts of medical and mental problems. This government is doing nothing for the people for they are loyal to foreigners.

America is hijacked by foreigners and you people just sit around and continue to let this moron call the shots while your soldiers get slaughtered and illegals roam into your country freely. Americans have proven how powerless they really are.

Question Americans; DO you not think this can happen on your soil? Your borders are more porous then a sponge and you have not immigration controls. You are a sitting ducks and since your soldiers are in Iraq who will help you now?, guess you haven’t thought that far.

What goes around comes around!!!!

Report this

By yours truly, January 27, 2007 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Oh but it couldn’t happen here.”

“Yeah, and our president wouldn’t lie his way into a war,  would he?”

Report this

By chuck i, January 27, 2007 at 10:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

impeach king george who says “i make all the decisions on iraq” & won’t listen to the american people, congress & the world.

Report this

By Spinoza, January 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We have to get out in the streets. raise hell. get guns.

Report this

By DennisD, January 26, 2007 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe we can arrange to have a few Iranian fishing boats attack our aircraft carrier to get things started. Deja vu all over again.

Report this

By stevebenjamins, January 26, 2007 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one is fooled. But since the national will is in the hands of war profiteers and their media, it may happen, and sooner rather than later for George; It is his only out to put the clean up and blame on the next poor slob elected.

Report this

By Cal, January 26, 2007 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The people in Washington (and that includes the Democrats), and those behind them, have already decided on (or acceded to) a missile attack on Iran, and will probably carry it out in a few weeks. It’s as sure now as was the bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003. We’re at D-Day minus a couple of weeks, in all likelihood.
If one wishes to be effective politically, it’s important to recognize that all the power brokers in Washington are in on this, regardless of party. The general mood is, Iran cannot be allowed to be a power in the region. That’s the political overlay.
The reasons behind it are doubtless more obscure. But when the missiles launch, it won’t matter.
If one wants to understand, for instance, why Senator Edwards would be giving a speech in Israel warning Iran that all options are on the table, you just have to plug in the idea that he already knows that the attack is imminent, he accepts it and is positioning himself so that, once the American public has been sold the story that the attack was justified and vital to American national security, he can remind everyone that he also recognized the Iranian threat; but of course, he’ll claim that he would have taken care of it better (better, of course, than things will turn out).
This is the time to declare that Iranians, Arabs, all people are in fact our brothers and sisters, and that the supposed American interests we’re called upon to defend are in fact not our interests at all, but those of our rulers.

Report this

By TAO Walker, January 26, 2007 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And if the Persians don’t take the bait pretty soon (David #49825) it’s a dead certainty something will be staged.  There may be some who find a little reassurance yet in the junta’s still going through the motions of finding, or manufacturing, an “excuse” to attack Iran (Big Al #49832).  It might be seen as evidence of at least a vestigial “....respect for the decent opinions of mankind…” among these megalomaniacs.  Even a tattered veil of “plausible deniability” is still seen by them as preferable, perhaps, to just plain murderous aggression….....even in a world running on gangster rules.

It’s already too late to escape nuclear war this decade, though.  Depleted uranium munitions have effectively rendered much of Iraq and parts of Afghanistan radioactively unsafe for human habitation for at least decades to come.  The Iranians are obviously slated for an “upgrade” to the next level of immediate and long-term lethality.

A likely already plotted sequence has useful idiot Bush “ordering” a joint U.S./Israeli assault on much more than just Iran’s alleged nuclear sites, using at least a few “tactical” nukes to send “the right message” to everybody else in the world with interests in the region.  Then someone will finally sanction the actual “hit” on goatboy George that has been pending since his 9/11 exposure.  Then it’s a constitutional-maximum ten years of Dick Cheney occupying the “unitary presidency” he and Rumsfeld and Gonzalez and others have worked so hard to establish…....and the “perpetual war for perpetual peace” regime becomes the “dominant paradigm” ‘til the end of time.

Does anyone still believe such things are unthinkable?  “Reality” being the “untidy” arrangement it is, of course, probably guarantees much more will go awry than has already with this insane (but, internally, perfectly logical) scheme.  We’d better expect, however, based on their performance to-date, that its perpetrators will not be deterred even for a moment by that prospect.

If Theamericanpeople prove unable to arrest those who’ve hijacked their republic ands its military, and very much sooner than later, the rest of the world will be faced with having to bring-down a “rogue nation” with no effective domestic restraints, rampaging at-will, and even whose collapse itself can’t help but have worldwide consequences…......merely serious for some peoples, downright dire for most others, and quite possibly fatal for more than a few. 

Welcome to “interesting times.”

HokaHey!

Report this

By Rodney Matthewsr, January 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George Bush just loves to kill people whether its justified or not, We don’t even know who we are killing other than they are middle eastern men. It’s the Bush version of the Holocost. Most of them are innocent. What a delimma for our soldiers to be in. Shoot first and ask questions later and sorry if we killed the wrong guy.  As Bush believes if we kill the wrong guy, he won’t later become a terrorist, or father children that may become terrorist. The United States along with Israel have killed thousands of muslim and arab men because they do not agree with our policies as we occupy their land. Is this not considered a form of genocide?

Report this

By Larry, January 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The president has authorized U.S. troops to “kill or capture” Iranian soldiers and intelligence operatives found in Iraq,...”
And what about Congress?
What are they there for anyway?
And Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace. She wants war as bad as Bush. What is she doing to stop him?
Hillary wants this Iran war. Good for her fundraising.
And the great Obama?
Fundraising.


Old boss, new boss, all the same.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, January 26, 2007 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: •    Comment #49811 by Bukko in Australia  on  1/26  at  5:03 am — The new motto of the United States should be “We can kill whoever we want to.”

>>> Double-00 — now you’re talking BOW = Black Ops Water

The new MO in global security vis-à-vis the GWOT = Global War Of Terror, in full service to the NWO = New World Oligarchy.

Wake up, Infidel. You’re paying for this war.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7872577141161603310&q=death+star+arab+league&hl=en

Report this

By paul, January 26, 2007 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Finally!!  Three cheers for W who is finally showing leadership in a time of world crisis by taking the shackles off of our brave military personnel in their fight to preserve Iraq’s new freedom and ultimately our freedom here in the states. 
Obviously (no one denies it), the Iranians are coordinating and funding the daily havoc in Iraq.  What has taken us so long to do something about it?  Notwithstanding the overwhelming sentiments of the libs who respond to this agenda-laden website (defined as a bunch of irrelevant libs complaining to themselves), sanity is finally prevailing.

Of course it makes sense for coalition forces to attack those Iranians in Iraq who are funneling funds and munitions to our enemy—who are coordinating homicide bombers within Iraq—who are acting as border agents to ensure the demise of Iraq’s fledgling democracy. 

Going after them is a no-brainer. Except, of course, to the majority of you folks on this website, who want Bush to fail at any cost.  I truly believe that you would rather see Iraq fail to maintain its democracy—to see Iran succeed in this war—to see all democracies everywhere fail, than have Bush prevail.  You cannot find one British, American, Japanese, UN serviceman or woman stationed in Iraq who does not want to stop those border-based Iranians in Iraq directly and indirectly responsible for the daily homicide bombing attacks in Iraq.  It is easy for many not over there to find fault with this.  But then again, if W lowered taxes for libs only and raised them on big, nasty corporations and those hated rich folks (who are mean and who support Haliburton, and big oil, and profits), you libs would still complain.  You will complain no matter what W does.  If he retired, you’d complain.  If he pardoned you, you’d complain.  If he raised your taxes (as Hilary will), you’d complain.  He actually lowered your taxes—big time, and you still complained.  If he eliminated the deficit, you’d compalined.  If he raised the minimum wage, you’d complain.  If he wins the war on terror, you’d complain.  If he won the lottery and donated his winnings to Truthdig, you’d complain.  If he saves the free world, you’d complain.  If he saved the earth in a battle against forces from another universe, you’d complain.  If he saved the galaxy, you’d complain.  If it turns out he is really Jesus Christ (and you had irrefutable evidence that He was), you’d complain.  Of course, we all know that your complaints are irrelevant.  You’re liberals—that is your nature.  It makes you feel better to complain.  So, go ahead, and start complaining about this piece.  Let’s haer you do what you do best—attack me and complain.

Way to go, W!!!!

Paul

Report this

By trantieungoc, January 26, 2007 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No need authorization ! Just killed any one they wanted then declared that “they’re Iranians”. Who could confirm that was true or not ? Lying is Bush/Cheney profession. They can change black to white and vice versa. Their authorization to kill will surely be a piece of toilet paper.

Report this

By dick, January 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No surprise here. “Securing the Realm”, prepared for the PM of Israel, and “Project for the New American Century”, were both the work of the same neocons now in charge of Bush, their pawn. Their object is for the USA to cause mayhem in the middle east, which they believe is in Israel’s best interest.And what about our interests? They are not considered.

Report this

By vet240, January 26, 2007 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t think this is news. I think our troops have and will continue to kill or capture Iranians, Saudis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Yemenis, etc.

While most of the resistance to our presense come from Iraqis, it’s been no secret that a small percentage of the insurgency is supported and facilitated by outsiders.

Non story here.

Report this

By Quy Tran, January 26, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

They do not need authorization to kill. They’re already killed and killed a lot. Authorization is just a monkey business issued by a sub-human administration.

Report this

By think about this, January 26, 2007 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

NOBODY was thinking the least bit about iran or iraq in 2000.
This is all a fiction superimposed upon our otherwise decent reality by a psycho from connecticut who liked the s&m feel of being a faux texas redneck, and studied the proud ignorance of his kkk and cia/nazi heroes in fomenting his own plans to blow up the world to outdo his daddy who only buggered panama, el salvador, iran iraq and organized the killing of jfk.

Report this

By John Earl, January 26, 2007 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe Bush’s brain ( Karl Rove ) has decided that it would be politically expedient to have another front on the “War On Terrorism”—Iran.

He really should include Saudi Arabia whose citizens have bankrolled the Sunni insurgents.

But why stop at that? Pakistan has provided safe harbor for the Taliban and Al Queda.

Report this

By Big Al, January 26, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Judging from recent events, it’s clear that the Bush administration includes legitimate Iranian diplomats - even inside their own consulates or embassies - as among the “operatives” in Iraq who are to be killed or captured.

This even includes diplomats who are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, or at the invitation of Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq.

In other words, the US will not allow the “sovereign” government of Iraq, nor will it allow our “friends” the Kurds, to try to cultivate peaceable relations with Iraq’s neighbor, Iran.

Why?

Because the US is determined to demonize Iran in preparation for a devastating, unprovoked, and illegal US military assault against Iran for the illegitimate purpose of preserving Israel’s regional hegemony and monopoly on nuclear technology.

Report this

By David, January 26, 2007 at 8:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The administration is using every tool in their book to provoke the Iranians into a retalitory act.  All the Neo-cons need is the slightest provocation or excuse from Iran, and I think we’ll throw over the table and let the guns blaze.  My god…what have we allowed to happen in this country…our world.  These sick diseased people are intentionally spearheading us into WWIII (as all who are privy to the neo-con loop are so quick to point out), and we are passively sitting back and letting it happen.  Electing Democrats to the House and Senate is obviously not the answer.  Lines have been drawn.  Russia, China Iran vs. US, Britain and Israel.  We all know the administration is intent on using nuclear weaponry.  If we get out of this decade without a nuclear war, it would be a miracle.

Report this

By Steve Hammons, January 26, 2007 at 8:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many in the Bush administration, and their neocon supporters, seem to want a major conflict with Iran in the near future, probably before the Bush administration leaves office.

They seem to want a kind of World War III. And with our over-extended Army and Marine Corps, something will have to give.

In the event of escalation of the Bush administration military activities in the regions, calls for a military draft could increase.

For more on these concerns, the article below may be of interest:

Military draft needed for war with Iran and Syria?

Steve Hammons
t r u t h o u t.org
American Chronicle

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22754

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11698

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, January 26, 2007 at 6:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So now all U.S. soldiers carry the “double 0” classification, a la 007 James Bond, who was authorised by His Majesty to kill anyone at will. I can see that as a great defense for future troops who massacre Iraqi families. “I shot the mother after I raped the daughter because I thought they were screaming at me in Iranian.”

The new motto of the United States should be “We can kill whoever we want to.”

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook