America's perpetual-war machine

JReb1

Mentor
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
838
Iran would never launch a nuke at Israel even if it were to obtain one or two. Now if Iran has a nuke and Israel and the USA attack them 1st than all bets are off. The ONLY way Iran can protect themselves from an attack is by getting a nuke. As for Iran attacking Israel 1st with the weapons they have now it would be foolish. Iran could do maybe a little better than Iraq did with the scuds but than nobody would condemn Israel or the USA for bombing the hell out of them. Israel would LOVE for Iran to hit them with a scud 1st so they can then start their attack on Iran that's been in the works for years now while the USA is there to help them should they get bin over their heads.

I just hope America gets out of the ME and lets those barbarians fight amongst themselves (if Israel starts a war they should be on their own IMO) and instead focuses on our lax border security and ME immigration. They can't attack us here if we don't let them in...

Edited by: JReb1
 

j41181

Master
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
2,344
JReb1 said:
Iran would never launch a nuke at Israel even if it were to obtain one or two. Now if Iran has a nuke and Israel and the USA attack them 1st than all bets are off. The ONLY way Iran can protect themselves from an attack is by getting a nuke. As for Iran attacking Israel 1st with the weapons they have now it would be foolish. Iran could do maybe a little better than Iraq did with the scuds but than nobody would condemn Israel or the USA for bombing the hell out of them. Israel would LOVE for Iran to hit them with a scud 1st so they can then start their attack on Iran that's been in the works for years now while the USA is there to help them should they get bin over their heads.I just hope America gets out of the ME and lets those barbarians fight amongst themselves (if Israel starts a war they should be on their own IMO) and instead focuses on our lax border security and ME immigration. They can't attack us here if we don't let them in...
Exactly what I tried to say and you delivered it better.
 

Thrashen

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,706
Location
Pennsylvania
j41181 said:
Iran would be foolish to make the first strike, they know better than to. I'm counting on Israel to make the first strike, it'll add more resentment to their already Nazi-like image.



Using the time-honored, new age "N-Word"Â￾ to describe something supposedly "malevolent"Â￾"¦how original. That term is more offensive to me than the media darling, "white boy."Â￾ I hope you were being facetious and merely repeating their hate jargon. Edited by: Thrashen
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Ol' Juan McAmnesty is so full of horse dung, it's seeping out his mouth...everytime he spews another load of...well, you know.
smiley2.gif
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Obama Doctrine: Congress just declared pre-emptive WAR on Iran.

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."Â￾

Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council voteon June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions"Â￾ against Iran.Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes.After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National Newsthat, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."Â￾

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."Â￾

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe"Â￾ and are "worried"Â￾ that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."Â￾


<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly itlooks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even thoughIran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only.America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc[/tube]
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Ron Paul-the only sane man in an insane asylum.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
U.S. missiles near China send message.

more war-mongering by "our" leaders in Washington, D.C.
smiley7.gif


<H1>U.S. Missiles Deployed Near China Send a Message</H1>
<DIV =byline sizset="0" sizcache="509">By Mark Thompson / Washington Thursday, Jul. 08, 2010



If China's satellites and spies were working properly, there would have been a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese navy last week. A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified "boomers" to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads.
Their capability makes watching these particular submarines especially interesting. The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan.
That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms were likely sounded when the U.S.S. Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day. And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the U.S.S. Florida surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood. "There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."
U.S. officials deny that any message is being directed at Beijing, saying the Tomahawk triple play was a coincidence. But they did make sure that news of the deployments appeared in the Hong Kongâ€"based South China Morning Post â€" on July 4, no less. The Chinese took notice quietly. "At present, common aspirations of countries in the Asian and Pacific regions are seeking for peace, stability and regional security," Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said on Wednesday. "We hope the relevant U.S. military activities will serve for the regional peace, stability and security, and not the contrary."
Last month, the Navy announced that all four of the Tomahawk-carrying subs were operationally deployed away from their home ports for the first time. Each vessel packs "the firepower of multiple surface ships," says Captain Tracy Howard of Submarine Squadron 16 in Kings Bay, Ga., and can "respond to diverse threats on short notice."
The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st century. Reduced tensions since the end of the Cold War have seen the U.S. scale back its deployment of nuclear weapons, allowing the Navy to reduce its Trident fleet from 18 to 14. (Why 14 subs, as well as bombers and land-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons, are still required to deal with the Russian threat is a topic for another day.)
Sure, the Navy could have retired the four additional subs and saved the Pentagon some money, but that's not how bureaucracies operate. Instead, it spent about $4 billion replacing the Tridents with Tomahawks and making room for 60 special-ops troops to live aboard each sub and operate stealthily around the globe. "We're there for weeks, we have the situational awareness of being there, of being part of the environment," Navy Rear Admiral Mark Kenny explained after the first Tomahawk-carrying former Trident sub set sail in 2008. "We can detect, classify and locate targets and, if need be, hit them from the same platform."
The submarines aren't the only new potential issue of concern for the Chinese. Two major military exercises involving the U.S. and its allies in the region are now under way. More than three dozen naval ships and subs began participating in the "Rim of the Pacific" war games off Hawaii on Wednesday. Some 20,000 personnel from 14 nations are involved in the biennial exercise, which includes missile drills and the sinking of three abandoned vessels playing the role of enemy ships. Nations joining the U.S. in what is billed as the world's largest-ever naval war game are Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and Thailand. Closer to China, CARAT 2010 â€" for Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training â€" just got under way off Singapore. The operation involves 17,000 personnel and 73 ships from the U.S., Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.


China is absent from both exercises, and that's no oversight. Many nations in the eastern Pacific, including Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam, have been encouraging the U.S. to push back against what they see as China's increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. And the U.S. military remains concerned over China's growing missile force â€" now more than 1,000 â€" near the Taiwan Strait. The Tomahawks' arrival "is part of a larger effort to bolster our capabilities in the region," Glaser says. "It sends a signal that nobody should rule out our determination to be the balancer in the region that many countries there want us to be." No doubt Beijing got the signal.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Top Clinton Official: Only A Terror Attack Can Save Obama

an excerpt:
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, July 14, 2010


A former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton says that the only thing which can rescue Barack Obama's increasingly tenuous grip on power as his approval figures continue to plunge is a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11, another startling reminder that such events only ever serve to benefit those in authority.


Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama's "growing credibility crisis"Â￾ and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans, Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency.
*******************************************

on a similar note, CNN Host Calls Deadly Terror Bombings "Helpful"Â￾ To NWO Agenda (Source: CNN).



Speaking with a former CIA agent, Sanchez stated, "You know what's interesting about this, in a strange way the event is helpful to the cause of those of us who know how sadistic these fundamental radical Islamic terrorists are and if it helps get the message out there that these are not the good guys then so be it"Â￾.
[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIWE2XHMahg[/tube]
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
JC, I've suspected they'd hatch another (big) false-flag for a while now. When the polls/ratings go down, the "terror alert" (ironically
smiley24.gif
) goes up. I also think the PTB is studying on (another) false flag "attack" to justify a declaration of martial law & full suspension of Constitutional rights.



Edited by: DixieDestroyer
 

whiteCB

Master
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,282
DixieDestroyer said:
JC, I've suspected they'd hatch another (big) false-flag for a while now. When the polls/ratings go down, the "terror alert" (ironically
smiley24.gif
) goes up. I also think the PTB is studying on (another) false flag "attack" to justify a declaration of martial law & full suspension of Constitutional rights.

Hey Dixie what does PTB stand for? I see you use the term all the time. I have an inkling it stands for the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, basically the power players who run the show.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
whiteCB said:
Hey Dixie what does PTB stand for? I see you use the term all the time. I have an inkling it stands for the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, basically the power players who run the show.

since i got online before Dixie, i'll answer that question if i may.
smiley1.gif
your surmise was actually very accurate, mate.
smiley20.gif


PTB = Powers That Be.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
WCB, you are right on the money partner. PTB = Globalist Elite = NWO = Shadow Government = Puppet Ma$ters = "Welcoming Committee for the antichrist = "Servants of Old Scratch".

JC, thanks for the clarification.
smiley1.gif
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
ah, there's nothing like the smell of pre-emptive attacks in the morning ...
smiley5.gif


UAE ambassador says country may back a US-Israeli attack on Iran.

The U.A.E. may be about to support the U.S. and Israel in their rumored plans to attack Iran, according to reports from Der Spiegel.
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; TEXT-ALIGN: left; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; : transparent; COLOR: #000000; OVERFLOW: ; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
The U.A.E.'s ambassador to the U.S., Yousef Al Otaiba, recently expressed his concerns that the costs of having Iran be a nuclear power were too high for his country, and worth the costs of going to war with the country:
<EM itxt="1">But, he added, "if you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."[/i]
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently expressed his concerns that Iran was close to building a weapon, after Iran announced it had 20 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium.
This will only lead to growing worries over the plans of both the U.S. and Israel regarding war with Iran.
according to the Zionists in D.C., Israel (who has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, has at least 200 hundred nuclear missiles, and is currently practicing genocide against the Palestinians) is a super-duper ally. but Iran (who HAS signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, has NO nuclear missiles, and is simply wanting to preserve the right to control their own natural resources) is an imminent threat to national security SO dangerous (this, despite having virtually no military force whatsoever), that pre-emptive war is being considered ... yet another sign that the world is truly upside down.

wow. just wow.
smiley7.gif
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
The US Militarization of Central America and the Caribbean: the US Moves into Costa Rica.


Nestled between Panama to its south and Nicaragua to its north, Costa Rica is a Central American nation roughly the size of Rhode Island.


If another nation were to send Rhode Island a force of 7,000 troops, 200 helicopters, and 46 warships in an effort to eradicate drug trafficking, it is doubtful that the residents of Rhode Island would consider this offer "on-the-level." Such a massive military force could hardly be efficiently used to combat drug cartels. The only logical conclusion is that the nation whose troops now are occupying this other country had another agenda in mind that it didn't want to share.


In early July, by a vote of 31 to 8, the Costa Rican Congress approved the U.S. bringing into their nation the same military force described above, justified with the same dubious "war on drugs" rationale. According to the agreement, the military forces are supposed to leave Costa Rica by the end of 2010. This begs the question, however, if such an over the top display of military muscle is needed now to combat the drug cartels, what will be done in the next few months to make their presence unnecessary? The history of such U.S. military deployments around the world suggests a more credible outcome than what the agreement states. Once the U.S. moves such massive forces into a country, they rarely move them out ...
The Transformation of American Warfare: Fighting Wars with Robots

The Pentagon is rapidly improving its ability to fight wars with robots. This capability is "bringing about the most profound transformation of warfare since the advent of the atom bomb,"Â￾ says Scientific American, and raises "a host of ethical and legal issues."Â￾


"Robots are pouring onto battlefields as if a new species of mechanotronic alien had just landed on our planet,"Â￾ the publication says in an editorial on their development in its July issue. "The prospect of androids that hunt down and kill on their own accord (shades of Terminator) should give us all pause. An automatic pilot that makes its own calls about whom to shoot violates the ‘human' part of international humanitarian law, the one that recognizes that some weapons are so abhorrent that they just should be eliminated."Â￾


Since 2003, 7,000 unmanned aircraft and 12,000 ground vehicles have entered the U.S. military inventory, "entrusted with missions that range from seeking out snipers to bombing the hideouts of al-Qaeda higher-ups in Pakistan,"Â￾ writes P.W. Singer in an accompanying article titled "War of The Machines."Â￾
the abovearticle goes on to provide extensive detail.

US deploys aircraft carrier to South Korea

The U.S. is sending the massive aircraft carrier the USS George Washington to South Korea this week, the military announced Monday.


The deployment is considered a show of force in the wake of the sinking of a South Korean warship last March that killed 46 sailors. South Korea and an international team of investigators have blamed North Korea for the attack.


The carrier was expected to be in South Korea's port of Busan by Wednesday and could participate in an upcoming military exercise.


The nuclear powered carrier, one of the world's largest warships, will be accompanied by three destroyers â€" the McCampbell, the John S. McCain and the Lassen.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were expected to announce more details this week about the upcoming joint military exercise.
Edited by: Jimmy Chitwood
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Hillary Clinton admits that the USA and Pakistan created the Mujahaddin. you know, Al Quaeda (aka Al CIA Duh). from the Daily Paul:


I happened to be flipping through the channels last night, when I stumbled onto this interview.


I chose to watch, as I was curious as to what the justification for the recent decision to give Pakistan billions of dollars, was going to be.


Needless to say, my jaw dropped when Hillary admitted with a straight face, that the US and Pakistan created the supposed enemies we now face.


This is obviously something that most of us knew, but to watch them admit it, and use it as a reason to stay there and or expand, is beyond insanity.


The hits just keep on comin.'
Note: She admits it @ 3 minutes, but the whole interview is quite telling, if you can stomach it.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Cc3LfhQ-o[/tube]
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
JC, thanks for posting "Shillary ClinTAX's" admission. Former "Gimpy" Carter NSA (& Trilateral Commission co-founder) Zbigniew Brzezinski previously admitted CIA/U.S. funding of the Mujahideen vs. the Soviets. No doubt OBL was indeed a CIA asset too.

Operation Cyclone

Edited by: DixieDestroyer
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas

TwentyTwo

Master
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
3,422
Location
Louisiana
What do yall think??

"Obama Is a Threat to National Security"Â￾

This week, when whistleblower website Wikileaks released over 90,000 classified documents portraying a dismal war in Afghanistan, the White House called editor Julian Assange and his organization a threat to national security. But it is this White House that is a threat to national security. Wikileaks simply helped prove it.
It is no secret that that telling lies to make sure the "citizenry remains largely ignorant"Â￾ of what its government "is really doing"Â￾ is standard operating procedure for Washington, DC.

Wikileaks or any other organization that knowingly releases classified information that might actually harm the soldier on the battlefield or compromise war strategy should be held accountableâ€"but so should a government that continues to harm soldiers by putting them on the battlefield with no war strategy, clear mission or definable victory. Wikileaks has tried to hold the government accountable by more accurately informing the public about what's really going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hopefully the mainstream media will now follow suit. Our national security depends on it.

Entire article...
http://www.amconmag.com/tactv/2010/07/29/obama-is-a-threat-to-national-security/#comments
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
22, national security encompasses assurance of sovereignty, so of course Obongo & his fellow Globalist shills are a threat to (that) sovereignty.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
three related news items came across the wire today involving the most precious nation on the planet: Israel. i'll post the headlines and excerpts below.
MP: Israel to vanish if they attack Iran
A senior Iranian parliamentarian insists if Israel makes any wrong moves against Iran, it will be wiped off the earth by a severe response.

Noting that the US is the prime sponsor of "the Zionist regime," the Deputy Chairman of Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy Ismail Kosari added Sunday that Tel Aviv is unable to take any action without the American support, stressing that Israel acts as a US front to intimidate the Islamic Republic, IRNA reported ...

The remarks by the Iranian MP comes following the passing of an unbinding resolution in the US congress by its Republican members invoking support for an Israeli attack on Iran, and as the two allies continue intensive international efforts to stir opposition against Iran's peaceful nuclear program and deviate attention from international calls to probe Israel's undeclared possession of over 200 nuclear warheads.

the above situation comes as a result of increasingly aggressive posturing by the hebrews.

Israel simulating attack on Iran
An open source intelligence report says the Israeli military helicopter that crashed in Romania last week was simulating a military attack on Iran.

On Monday, six Israeli soldiers and a Romanian flight captain aboard a CH-53 transport helicopter were killed when the chopper crashed in a mountainous region of central Romania.

The Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile cited a military source as saying on Friday that the crash had occurred in the last stage of a joint Israeli-US-Romanian military drill simulating an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel's bitches, the USA, are being swept up in the whole mess. and Obama's regime is being to show the stress. Obama's top Iran official resigns
Head of the US State Department's Iran desk, John Limbert, has resigned from his post due to disillusionment with the Obama administration's "outreach" to Tehran.

US President Barack Obama assigned the retired diplomat, who was one of the 52 Americans held captive in Tehran following the 1979 Revolution, to the Iran desk nine months ago.

"The Obama administration has been in office now for over a year and a half and I think everyone thought we would be in a better place with Iran."

...

The resignation comes amid a standoff over Iran's nuclear program over accusations that Tehran is pursuing a military nuclear program.

Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

you'll note that Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the USA isn't concerned with them. or their over 200 nuclear missiles. nor are all the nations who have signed on to impose sanctions against Iran ... an un-provoked, pre-emptivemilitary action in itself that the American media doesn't seem concerned about at all.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Bombers, missiles could end Iran nukes
Rowan Scarborough
Tuesday, August 3, 2010

A Pentagon strike against Iran would rely heavily on the B-2 bomber and cruise missiles to try to destroy the regime's ability to make nuclear weapons, analysts say, after the top U.S. military officer said a war plan is in place.



The missiles, fired from surface ships, submarines and B-52 bombers, would take out air defenses and nuclear-related facilities.


"It will be primarily an air attack with covert work to start a ‘velvet' revolution so [the] Iranian people can take back their country,"Â￾ said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former fighter pilot ...
Full story here.

the authors of this "brilliant" plan neglect to mention that Irandoesn't have theability to make nuclear weapons nor who the Iranian people will "take back their country" from, considering that Iran has a President in power who just won re-election ...

edited to add: well, it appears the author of the article revealed too much truth, as the Washington Times has already pulled the story. i guess it was a big, "Whoops."
smiley2.gif
Edited by: Jimmy Chitwood
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Pat Buchanan calls a spade a spade. GOP blank check for war?

an excerpt:
Pat Buchanan said:
Since June 1914, a "blank check"Â￾ given by one nation to another for war has been regarded as strategic folly.


Thus it is startling to learn 47 House Republicans just signed on to H.R. 1553 declaring unequivocal "support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran "¦ including the use of military force."Â￾


These Republicans have just given Tel Aviv a blank check for a pre-emptive war that Israel, unless it uses its nuclear weapons, can start but not finish. Fighting and finishing that war would fall to the armed forces of the United States.


Who do these Republicans represent?
...


Indeed, the principal purpose and result of an Israeli pre-emptive war on Iran, bringing retaliation on Israel, would be to drag America in to fight and finish a war Israel had begun.


In whose interest is that? And who dreamed this resolution up?

...


The House Republican resolution supports Israel's use of "all means necessary"Â￾ to "eliminate nuclear threats"Â￾ that represent an "immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."Â￾


What "immediate and existential threat"Â￾ are they talking about?


It is Israel that has hundreds of atomic bombs. Iran has no atom bombs, has tested no atomic device, has diverted none of its low-enriched uranium out of the sight of U.N. inspectors and has offered to ship half of its LEU to Turkey in exchange for fuel rods for a U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes. And half of the centrifuges at Natanz have broken down.

...

Three years ago, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that Iran had given up on the project of building a bomb ...
 

Michael

Mentor
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
870
An article entitled "NATO, An Alliance of Economic Brigands"

NATO and the West, led by America, always claim that they are doing everything for humanity, for the children and the little doggies and kitties. Yes, the West goes out and bombs and murderers civilians almost on a daily basis, but its always for a higher cause, or so the billion dollar PR machine always tells everyone.

http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2011/06/nato-alliance-of-economic-brigands.html
 
Top