It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 32
0
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Bush and Co. have a track record of engineering illegal wars


Such as??



- Correct, once again the context is perfectly clear, he was talking about a sanctions regime.

As is everyone else.
I'm going to keep asking until you show me. Show me where the U.S. or anyone else is preparing for anything other than sanctions.



- Well that really just indicates how this 'game' is being played.


Pathetic excuse for not answering the question. You can't provide any proof because there is none.


The problem for the Bush crowd is their track record.

Track record with what?



- Perfectly.
You don't think he just happened to have used similar terms himself do you?
I can only wonder at what the offer/threat was.

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a serious conversation here.
I didn't realize we were going into making moronic statements based on not facts, but our own personal bias.


......cos it isn't like we haven't seen this administration stand by and allow (or prompt) their western allies to be vilified, threatened, abused, boycotted etc etc when they don't get their way merely because Europe dared to take a different view, right?
(which, once upon a time, would have been the trigger for an utterly aghast 'you cannot be serious'; how times change, right?)

Nothing here made sense.



- Again, perfectly serious.
The Iranian President was not outlining the policy of the Iranian government (if you really want to continue this tack I suggest you back it up with some sort of evidence).


Evidence of what? It's up to YOU to provide evidence he's not speaking for his government.


- No, that would be ridiculous if you are trying to say he never speaks for the Iranian government.
However, there is a difference when he expresses a personal view (or gets carried away at a mass demo).
You'll know when you see the Iranian government announce a policy and subsequently act upon it.

Have you heard any reprimands from the rest of the Iranian government? No.


That does not rule him out of expressing personal opinion though (a series of opinions hardly unique in the ME to him), which is clearly what has happened here.
We know this because the Iranian government announced no such 'policy' and never has announced any such policy.

If ever given the chance, what do you think he'll do?


- Like I said the big problem here for Bush, Rumsfeld et al is that they have a track record of illegal wars and invading.
Iran does not.

Can you list this track record for me? I can't seem to find it anywhere....
If you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan - I know you're not, but if you were - Europe, and particularly Britian, is with us in those countries. That would mean Europe has this same "track record".
Once again (what is this the 10th time I'm asking?), please show me where the U.S. is taking a harder stance.


"The leaders of states who use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part.

This response could be a conventional one. It could be of a different kind."



"The fight against terrorism requires the mobilization of all political, economic and, when necessary as a last option, military means -- whenever possible under the umbrella of the United Nations"




ECK

you should spend some time looking into the many links provided on this thread. From your statements, I can only guess you didn't bother.

Ok, which of my statements have been contridictory to ANY of the links provided?
Please tell me and I'll addess it.

ALL I have said throughout this thread is that Europe is doing just as much and MORE than the U.S. concerning Iran. I have yet to be provided with ANY evidence that would suggest otherwise.
The only other thing I have disagreed with is that we're about to go to war with Iran soon. You're first post in this threads says you think we're about to "invade or bomb the crap" out of Iran.
And here:

More importantly to consider is, where in the world would BushCo. come up with the troops eventually needed for such an action? It's simply implausible to consider, and yet they are


1. I thought you said you were in the military?
If you were, you would know that if we were about to go to war, it'd be a year at the very least before anything happened, not one month (and that's without waiting for the UN)


2. Europe and the UN has been more involved with Iran than the U.S. Why did you leave them out?

3. With them involved, wouldn't that be more than enough troop strength?

Why is it that the only one's talking about war are the anti-Bush people? (and by anti-Bush people I mean people like ECK. I don't like Bush either but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around making stuff up. There's no point, he does enough that we rational people don't have to do that.)
You all still haven't provided any evidence that this won't go through the UN. The UN certainly won't approve any military action in the next month.

So, why should I believe your unfounded personal opinion and bias that the U.S. is about to go to war with Iran in March over the reality that the UN won't even hear about Iran until March, then month(s?) long negotiations will begin, and at the most possible sanctions may be put in place (talking about 2006 only).
What makes your opinion better than the other 7 billion people's opinion?




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Such as??


- Iraq for instance.


As is everyone else.
I'm going to keep asking until you show me. Show me where the U.S. or anyone else is preparing for anything other than sanctions.


- You can stick with that line if you like.
The 'I'm not threatening a war (except when I do) but I'll go on and on and on and on and on talking about the possibility of one' (along with hours of media comment on that possibility) isn't fooling too many.


Pathetic excuse for not answering the question. You can't provide any proof because there is none.


- I'd say your determined insistent denial is what is actually "pathetic" here.
Go check out Rumsfeld's history, he's been on 'the nutter trail' for many many years. PNAC and Imperial America. Check them out.

......er, and thanks for the insult though.


Track record with what?


- Unilateral decisions to go to war.


I'm sorry. I thought we were having a serious conversation here.
I didn't realize we were going into making moronic statements based on not facts, but our own personal bias.


- More insults; not going to do much for a serious conversation, wouldn't you say?


Nothing here made sense.


- You're not European so I guess not.


Evidence of what? It's up to YOU to provide evidence he's not speaking for his government.


- You made the claim that he was, please back it up.

I have said that his comments were made during a rally for the Palestinians (which they were).
If you think he expressed a new Iranian governmental policy please substantiate that view.

I suspect you can't hence this diversion. (not that it will stop you repeating the claim at a later date, I'm sure)


Have you heard any reprimands from the rest of the Iranian government? No.


- Actually senior members of the Iranian power structure did come out and criticize him for those comments.


If ever given the chance, what do you think he'll do?


- What he does now (cos, according to your logic, he already has that chance). Nothing.

Iran has had WMDs in the form of chemical and biological weapons for over 10years along with the missile technology to deliver them.

They have never used them nor threatened their use in all that time.


Can you list this track record for me? I can't seem to find it anywhere.


- You obviously aren't looking.
Iraq is the prime contender.


If you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan - I know you're not, but if you were - Europe, and particularly Britian, is with us in those countries. That would mean Europe has this same "track record".


- Britain also acted illegally by making the attack.
As for the rest of Europe they are there for the rebuild, hardly the same thing as the initial attack and invasion.


Once again (what is this the 10th time I'm asking?), please show me where the U.S. is taking a harder stance.


- You have been shown 'not ruling out military action' quotes from people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice umteen times.

You can ignore the context (that this was what they did over Iraq) and choose not to see it if you wish.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Iraq for instance.

The Iraqi war is neither illegal nor was it engineered by this Bush administration. This war has been in the plans for years.
You said "countries" - plural. So I take it you can give a better example.
Please do.



- You can stick with that line if you like.
The 'I'm not threatening a war (except when I do) but I'll go on and on and on and on and on talking about the possibility of one' (along with hours of media comment on that possibility) isn't fooling too many.

I'm asking you to show me where anyone has threatened war.
Why can't you do that?
Simple task.
Go around the internet. Find any credible person in the U.S. government suggesting we're about to go to war. Post link.
That's it.



- I'd say your determined insistent denial is what is actually "pathetic" here.
Go check out Rumsfeld's history, he's been on 'the nutter trail' for many many years. PNAC and Imperial America. Check them out.

Denial of what!?
Ok, checked Rumsfeld's history. Now what? How is this proving that the U.S. is doing everything while Europe is just sitting back?

This is actually making me laugh out loud


I asked you to provide evidence Europe is doing nothing and all you can do is tell me to check Rumys history? lol


......er, and thanks for the insult though.

Saying you don't have evidence is an insult?



- Unilateral decisions to go to war.

I'm assuming you're talking about Iraq again...
Pop quiz - how many different countries are with us in Iraq?
Hint: It's more than 0 as you're suggesting.

Again, you make it plural, so I can assume you have more examples?
Please share.



- More insults; not going to do much for a serious conversation, wouldn't you say?

If you can prove what you're saying, then why don't you do it?
Prove Rumsfeld threatened the German Chancellor into saying that stuff. Please share with us where you got your info.


- You're not European so I guess not.

No I mean grammatically. What are you trying to say?


- You made the claim that he was, please back it up.

He's the president. No one else in the gov has reprimanded him. What is everyone to believe?


I have said that his comments were made during a rally for the Palestinians (which they were).
If you think he expressed a new Iranian governmental policy please substantiate that view.

You're right, it's not new.

Whether it's policy or not is not the issue. He's the PRESIDENT. Their leader. He has influence in his country. When he goes out, when he speaks, he's representing Iran. As leader you don't say things like that. Who cares if it's policy or not!? The fact that that's his view is just as bad!
Are you defending that statement because it's not policy?



- What he does now (cos, according to your logic, he already has that chance). Nothing.

What's this "according to my logic" crap?
If you can show me anywhere in this thread, anywhere on ATS, anywhere on the internet where I have in any way, shape, or form agreed that Iran has nukes then by all means show me and I'll quickly delete that post as that is NOT my view.


Iran has had WMDs in the form of chemical and biological weapons for over 10years along with the missile technology to deliver them.

They have never used them nor threatened their use in all that time.

lol
According to your buddy ECK, the NeoCons have gotten to you.
So which is it? Does Iran have WMDs or is it more lies by Bush and Co. to go to war?



- You obviously aren't looking.
Iraq is the prime contender.

Again you make it plural. If you can provide better "contenders," please do so.



- Britain also acted illegally by making the attack.
As for the rest of Europe they are there for the rebuild, hardly the same thing as the initial attack and invasion.

upload.wikimedia.org...



- You have been shown 'not ruling out military action' quotes from people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice umteen times.

I'm asking you to show this is exclusively from the U.S.!
Show me that European leaders are not saying this! That's ALL I'm asking.


www.upi.com...

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday he could not rule out the possibility of taking military action against Iran over its nuclear programs.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The Iraqi war is neither illegal nor was it engineered by this Bush administration.


- By the terms which used to pertain it certainly wasn't a legal war.
It got no UN backing.


This war has been in the plans for years.


- Quite so, the Imperial America and later PNAC planners had it in mind for a long long time beforehand.


I'm asking you to show me where anyone has threatened war.
Why can't you do that?
Simple task.
Go around the internet. Find any credible person in the U.S. government suggesting we're about to go to war. Post link.
That's it.


- There have been umteen posts showing talk of 'all options, including military' etc etc.


How is this proving that the U.S. is doing everything while Europe is just sitting back?


- It illustrates the context.
Rumsfeld is one of those how has been talking about this as an aim for decades.
Now they are enacting their plans.


I asked you to provide evidence Europe is doing nothing and all you can do is tell me to check Rumys history?


- Hardly.


Saying you don't have evidence is an insult?


- No, beginning the "pathetic" comments is insulting; as you know fine rightly.


Pop quiz - how many different countries are with us in Iraq?
Hint: It's more than 0 as you're suggesting.


- That ridiculous 'coalition' (of the - excepting the UK - small and insubstantial) is laughable.
The UN debacle demonstrated just how laughable.


If you can prove what you're saying, then why don't you do it?
Prove Rumsfeld threatened the German Chancellor into saying that stuff. Please share with us where you got your info.


- I said the fact she used identical terms was very interesting.
I wondered if he had used threats.
I did not state that he did so I have nothing to prove.

Tell me, do you think your government does not use coercion or threats, ever?


No I mean grammatically. What are you trying to say?


- It was perfectly clear.


He's the president. No one else in the gov has reprimanded him. What is everyone to believe?


- Try looking at how governments (outside of the US) work.
The comments and statements of Presidents and Prime Ministers are not always in themselves actual government policy.


You're right, it's not new.

Whether it's policy or not is not the issue.


- It is absolutely the issue when you attempt to characterise it as the Iranian government's policy.


He's the PRESIDENT. Their leader. He has influence in his country. When he goes out, when he speaks, he's representing Iran. As leader you don't say things like that. Who cares if it's policy or not!?


- Er, well it makes a huge difference when you move on from that to claim it represents the Iranian government's intentions and not simply his own personal opinions.


The fact that that's his view is just as bad!
Are you defending that statement because it's not policy?


- I'm not "defending" anything.
I am simply stating that to try and claim his (IMO stupid, offensive and wrong) comments illustrate the actual policy and intentions of the Iranian government is quite wrong.


What's this "according to my logic" crap?


- There is nothing "crap" about it.

You seem to be claiming that if he had the chance he'd attack Israel. I am pointing out that Iran has had WMD's in the form of chemical and biological weapons for many years (along with the missiles to deliver them).


According to your buddy ECK, the NeoCons have gotten to you.
So which is it? Does Iran have WMDs or is it more lies by Bush and Co. to go to war?


- Why are you saying this? ECK was so obviously talking about nuclear weapons (you surely understand the difference?)

It is a matter of fact that Iran has had both the missiles and WMDs (in chemical and biological form) for years.

So, where is this threat then?


I'm asking you to show this is exclusively from the U.S.!
Show me that European leaders are not saying this! That's ALL I'm asking.


- As you showed yourself (with the edited Blair comment) Europe is all about sanctions on this (barring a rare couple of personal - never going to amount to anything because they don't have that in their power - comments by Blair and Merkel).

See below - you did it yourself - for an example of such a comment.
Technically Blair may have the use of the UK's Royal prerogative to go to war unilaterally but the precedent set by the Iraq war means he now has to go through the UK Parliament (which he would never get).
www.upi.com...

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday he could not rule out the possibility of taking military action against Iran over its nuclear programs.




[edit on 7-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Astounding sminkey!

I never knew anyone could make me laugh so hard


Your logic is amazing.
If Blair or Merkel say something it's just their opinion and doesn't mean anything. If Rumy says the EXACT same thing, it means that's the government's official stance and the U.S. is on a war path

Get real man.

You're letting your antiAmericaness cloud reason



There's a saying, actions speak louder than words. Nothing will happen with Iran without going through the UN first. Who are the one's bringing the Iran issue to the UN?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Your logic is amazing.
If Blair or Merkel say something it's just their opinion and doesn't mean anything.


- Given the constraints under which they operate (in terms of their Parliaments etc etc) then, yes, that is a perfectly reasonable reflection on what those 2 have said and is perfectly logical.


If Rumy says the EXACT same thing, it means that's the government's official stance and the U.S. is on a war path


- Given the context and manner in which people like Rumsfeld operate then yes, again, that is a prefectly logical conclusion.


Get real man.

You're letting your antiAmericaness cloud reason


- No.
Sorry but an appeal to call me 'anti-American' on the basis of merely being 'anti' the current version of the US right-wing is just not correct or credible.


There's a saying, actions speak louder than words.


- Quite so......and the current pro-militaristic 'mood' of this administration is as plain in their deeds as anything they actually come out and say.


Nothing will happen with Iran without going through the UN first.


- I think you'll find Iraq (amongst other things) long ago put paid to (m)any one's faith that the US will abide by UN resolutions.
They will simply use the UN for as long as it suits.


Who are the one's bringing the Iran issue to the UN?


- Well we shall see.
I fully expect Europe and the UN to be used for as long as it is considered profitable and when it is sure no more will be gained from using the UN then the UN, like Europe, will end up being abused and ignored and by-passed - exactly as happened with Iraq - for daring to take a contrary view on what should happen next.

But as with Iraq the fact stands (which is where I came in on all of this) that the peoples of Europe will not be pro-war.
In that case I fully expect the US (or Israel or the 2 in concert) will act and eventually attack Iran, completely ignoring world opinion.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I can't wait until you start using actual facts instead of your own laughable rhetoric. You're not basing your logic on any facts at all and every single thing that you have said is from your own personal view and nothing else.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, tell me why should I believe or listen to you over anyone else?

I'm still waiting btw. You said that this administration has illegally invaded countries and has a track record of doing so. Besides Iraq, you still haven't provided any other examples.
I'll wait.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I keep thinking March of this year. I saw a site where someone said March 28.

This is just getting ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I can't wait until you start using actual facts instead of your own laughable rhetoric.


- More unnecessary and rather childish insults, well done you, how clever.


You're not basing your logic on any facts at all and every single thing that you have said is from your own personal view and nothing else.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, tell me why should I believe or listen to you over anyone else?


- Yeah despite everything that has gone on previously and all that has been posted here and on other threads it's all just groundless rhetoric.
(I note you've dropped the 'they can't be trusted with WMDs' line and have nothing to say about the public sentiment in Europe.)
Fine.
You believe that if you like.
Here's hoping you or any of yours don't end up getting drafted. Seriously.


I'm still waiting btw. You said that this administration has illegally invaded countries and has a track record of doing so. Besides Iraq, you still haven't provided any other examples.
I'll wait.


- Iraq will do just fine (as the rest of the world knows only too well)......but let's just hang on and see how they act in Iran and South America (also home to another one or more of Rumsfeld's ludicrous 'he's a Hitler' simply for daring to see things differently to the current US administration).



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Yeah despite everything that has gone on previously and all that has been posted here and on other threads it's all just groundless rhetoric.
(I note you've dropped the 'they can't be trusted with WMDs' line and have nothing to say about the public sentiment in Europe.)

What are you talking about? I'm asking a simple question. You're suggesting that the US is on a war path. But nothing that has come from the US is worse than anything that has come from Europe.
Show me why you think the US is on a war path and Europe is not even though they're saying the SAME EXACT THINGS.
Simple question.

And please show me where I said Iran can't be trusted with WMD's. You put it in quotes, so I take it you're quoting me. Please show me where I have said anything close to that. Thanks.

Public sentiment? There was a recent BBC poll on which country is looked on most negatively. Know what country won? Iran. 84% of Germans see Iran as a negative influence, 77% of Italians, 72% of Brits.


Fine.
You believe that if you like.
Here's hoping you or any of yours don't end up getting drafted. Seriously.

Why would there be a draft? I've asked you before. If you can show this country or any other country preparing for a war then by all means show us.
If you can show that if anything were to happen (extremely low probability) other countries won't be involved, then by all means show us.

Don't you find it the least bit strange that the only people talking about war are either anti government, anti Bush Administration, or anti American?
It's also strange that they never present any facts to back up their statements. Who cares about your opinion!? Everyone has one. Present facts!



And no, Iraq will not be just fine. You stated that this administration has a history of unilaterally invading other countries illegally. Please show us what these other countries are!? You can't make statements like that and not back them up.
You made this statement trying to show why when anyone here says "all options are on the table" it means war, but when Europe says it, it doesn't. (completely ignoring the fact that the UK and alot of other European countries are right there with us in Iraq. I'm guessing they're right there with us in those other phantom countries we've invaded as well)



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You're suggesting that the US is on a war path. But nothing that has come from the US is worse than anything that has come from Europe.
Show me why you think the US is on a war path and Europe is not even though they're saying the SAME EXACT THINGS.


- You could have played this little game pre-Iraq and we all saw how that turned out.
No doubt unless you get a public announcement of the date and time of attack you'll continue to deny the obvious preparations.

The difference between what a very few in Europe are saying is that those talking like that cannot do anything other than be vague and 'send signals'; they have no means of backing that up thanks to the 'mechanics' of their Parliaments and the existing disposition of their public etc etc.

This is quite unlike how Bush & Co have operated; they can and do manipulate opinion and have a nation already in the process of being well 'tuned' to the idea of a new war
(witness how the debate has stopped talking about when in future Iran might have nuclear weapons to now being all about them having them simply being 'unacceptable' and they might attack at any time - has anyone done a poll inb the US yet to indicate what % of Americans think they have them already, hmmm?
Shades of Saddam's imminent threat, eh?)


And please show me where I said Iran can't be trusted with WMD's. You put it in quotes, so I take it you're quoting me. Please show me where I have said anything close to that. Thanks.


- Er, you'll find these - " " - are quotation marks.

These - ' ' - are used, usually, for paraphrasing, emphasis or nuance or characterising.

Sorry if you took a general comment to specifically mean you personally.


Public sentiment? There was a recent BBC poll on which country is looked on most negatively. Know what country won? Iran. 84% of Germans see Iran as a negative influence, 77% of Italians, 72% of Brits.


- ....and what? What is that meant to show?
Do you think 'Europe' was against war in Iraq because there was public sentiment showing we liked Saddam?

Of course we don't much like the fundamentalist Iranian regime but that doesn't mean 'we' want to inflict yet another disastrous ME war on their people or ours.

........and I notice how (once again) you have edited the facts in your post and chose not to show the rest of that supposedly significant poll which goes on to show the US is the number 2 country seen 'negatively', polls hmmmm?

news.bbc.co.uk...



Don't you find it the least bit strange that the only people talking about war are either anti government, anti Bush Administration, or anti American?


- No and I do not accept your premise.
The Bush crowd are talking about war - in the same kind of terms they used pre-Iraq.
Lots of 'refusing to rule out's and lots of 'all options on the table'.....and lots of the 'in-house' media going on and on and on about a war.


And no, Iraq will not be just fine. You stated that this administration has a history of unilaterally invading other countries illegally. Please show us what these other countries are!? You can't make statements like that and not back them up.


- I did back it up, I was clearly referring to Iraq.
Sorry you took such an obvious turn of phrase (where I used the term ' a history of invading other countries') to mean plural.


You made this statement trying to show why when anyone here says "all options are on the table" it means war, but when Europe says it, it doesn't.


- 'Europe' - in terms of any of her individual Parliaments or the EU etc - has 'said' no such thing.
Individuals have made comments but they are not agreed policy and they have no power to act out any such threat.


(completely ignoring the fact that the UK and alot of other European countries are right there with us in Iraq.


- Like I said there is a world of difference between those that came in later to help rebuild that wrecked country and those that did the attacking and invading.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
You guys are providing the best read I have had all day!

Been going at it for a while too, huh?

This would probably be more swiftly decided with some boxing gloves.

Keep it up.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   


I'm going to wait until he answers my questions before going into anything else he said. Since he can't, this is proabably over. Which is too bad, I was just starting to have fun



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I don't see whith waht troops would the USA invade Iran...
will they borrow them from Canda ? or Mexico?

Iran has threatned to "mushroom" the USA, so i would probably bet that the USA will "mushroom" them first. I don't think there will be time or conditions for an invasion.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I am still with Smiley...keep trying bud



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir


Iran has threatned to "mushroom" the USA, so i would probably bet that the USA will "mushroom" them first. I don't think there will be time or conditions for an invasion.


It will be no mushroom remember Iran sits in lake of oil the same oil that will be the bounty after invasion.


They can not just light it on fire, the oil barons and war profiteers will never allowed that.

After all the poppet masters are the ones pushing wars for advantage.


[edit on 9-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

The Iraqi war is neither illegal nor was it engineered by this Bush administration.


Just because the OCCUPYING force declares there military action ' legal '

doesnt mean that the world follows this line.

I mean, didnt hitler spin the world into believe his take over of cheq was LEGAL?

This war isnt legal, how can it be, we went in for a reason, that reason turned out to be utter lies.

where's the legality in removing the government based on lies?



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
i've been studying nostradamus' prophecies and i've come to the conclusion Iran will rally the muslim forces and march through europe with an army, more than a million strong!

America won't of organised an invasion before this happens.
Though they are probably trying their best to foil the prophecies!

Iran will be the leader of the Army of the False Anti-Christ....

When the European War (WWIII) is over the anti-christ will come.....

It is prophecised that China will march when all parties are exausted so as to ensure their victory.......... Is China the Anti-Christ???



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
never know untill it happens or doesnt happen, none the less a war with Iran is highly probable.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
that it is...
the question is are you ready?




top topics



 
0
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join