US will invade Iran in '06

page: 34
0
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigEasy

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
2. ECK and others think that we'll invade Iran next month. Logistically speaking, that'll take a miracle. If that was going to happen, we'd have started preparing (real preperation) months ago.


What do you know that no one else knows? The above is not classified.

I'm not sure I get what you're asking....




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I think he is saying, "How do your know that we havent been preparing?"

The information is not not-classified. Hehe.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I think he is saying, "How do your know that we havent been preparing?"

The information is not not-classified. Hehe.

lol, I see...

In that case Big, when you're preparing for an invasion there's two things you need the most. People (troops) and equipment. It's also a good thing not to be engaged in any wars in the country right next to the one you're about to invade.
To invade a country the size and military strength of Iran, you're going to need A LOT of troops and A LOT of equipment.
We started really preparing for Iraq in October of 2002. We didn't attack until March. Iran has a much better military and is larger in size. If we started now to prepare we could be ready by Aug. or Sept. Maybe later since we're still actively engaged in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bozorgh
than it would most likely be his wife


I think the problem was that it wasn't his wife he "shot".



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigEasy
What are your sources on the above speculation? Until you up some, your claims are pure tabloid.


Ritter's quote on Saddam's ability to rearm was documented in TIME Magazine.
www.time.com...

CNN reported that Ritter has been caught twice arranging to meet young girls he met online (ages 14 and 16) for sexual purposes. Unfortunately for Ritter (who, by the way, wanted the girl to meet him at Burger King and watch him masturbate), he wasn't talking to little girls in either event: he was talking to undercover cops.
www.cnn.com...

The financial ties between Khafagi and Saddam, and Ritter's admission that his documentary was bankrolled by Khafagi made the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.
www.opinionjournal.com...
www.mail-archive.com...@erols.com/msg00286.html

Man, that's one sharp hatchet- left you without a leg to stand on.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Vagabond,

I read your links about Scott Ritter.

On the allegations of paedophilia, the case seems to have been effectively dismissed. There is no detail in the article that suggests Ritter was guilty, only that allegations were made, and then dismissed. If he's really a paedophile, why is he still walking around? It's all too possible that he was smeared by a government agency for speaking the truth about Iraq's lack of WMD. If Cheney's prepared to expose a CIA agent, why not fling some dirt at the monstrously inconvenient Ritter? It doesn't matter if there's nothing in it, because people such as yourself will be there to repeat the allegations.

Which, incidentally, have no bearing on his judgment about the Iraqi UTTER LACK of WMDs.

Likewise, when you actually read the article about the film, first, less than half a million dollars is not a huge budget for a movie. Second, and more to the point, nothing in the article you posted indicates that Ritter knew the money came from oil allocations.

Not such a sharp axe after all - blunt enough to bounce off the log and smack you in the shin, I think.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Iran better start cooking as many "roses to the prophet Muhammed" as it can- our siege of Tehran is going to cause plenty of collateral damage to these cowards which attack women and children over a friggin cartoon. Anybody here up to date on the cartoon protests? 15 churches burned in Nigeria. Pregnant women with their stomachs torn open. 30 dead today.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
On the allegations of paedophilia, the case seems to have been effectively dismissed. There is no detail in the article that suggests Ritter was guilty, only that allegations were made, and then dismissed. If he's really a paedophile, why is he still walking around? It's all too possible that he was smeared by a government agency for speaking the truth about Iraq's lack of WMD. If Cheney's prepared to expose a CIA agent, why not fling some dirt at the monstrously inconvenient Ritter? It doesn't matter if there's nothing in it, because people such as yourself will be there to repeat the allegations.

Which, incidentally, have no bearing on his judgment about the Iraqi UTTER LACK of WMDs.

Oh, contrar'.
Has everything to bear on is judgement. His personal and professional credibility was and has been long distorted, bought, foiled, and debunked. His pediphile case(s) and his Jane Dixon-like predictions all lend to hurting anything that he says, mentions, or writes. Simply put, he would be hard pressed to secure any type legit job within the borders of the US because of such. Bet.

Lack of evidence does not necessarily mean the absence of no evidence. Understand this? Seemingly, you claim no WMDs in Iraq, because no evidence sufficiently large amounts of evidences were found, yet claim that Scott Ritter was not seemingly convicted, besides what the existing evidences used against him were. Btw, he was given six months to not do such an act again or he would be seeing jail time. You are aware of this? At any rate....

Scott Ritter's words are cheap and amount to be worthless, thats right--worthless--especially after his unfulfilled, misguided, and self-assured Jane Dixon-like prediction concerning the US invading Iran.

Anyone still believing or taking anything the man says as truth or being valid to digest is presumably the same people who get suckered into buying swamp land or beachfront property in Oklahoma.

The man is a pediphile, convicted or not---probably why he is working for Al-Jazeera.
Ironic that the unconvicted pediphile Michael Jackson is living in the Middle East, huh...you know, the same area that Scott Ritter is living in and operating from?
I am sure that at some point in time, the two will have lunch to discuss methods, free from conviction, free to continue to pursue their sexual preferences, interests, and exploits....

Yeah, I listen to every single word uttered from the lips or fingers of Scott Ritter when applied to world and foreign affairs and matters. Not!






seekerof

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I read your links about Scott Ritter.


Good, then you are aware that he arranged for a cop posing as a young girl to meet him for sexual purposes, never stood in front of a jury for it, and would have done time if he'd been caught again within six months.


There is no detail in the article that suggests Ritter was guilty,

Except of course for an undercover cop arranging to meet him at a Burger King in Colonie, NY, and then him showing up at said Burger King and being arrested.

There is no detail in the story or anywhere else that trumps this; the only conclusion warranted by the facts available is that his position saved him.


If he's really a paedophile, why is he still walking around? It's all too possible that he was smeared by a government agency for speaking the truth about Iraq's lack of WMD.


If he'd switched sides during the Bush administration and was subsequently caught for the first time, that would make perfect sense.

He switched sides during the Clinton Administration and was caught for the first time before he made any significant trouble for Bush. What makes sense in this case is that he has a problem, that it was used to blackmail him, he got caught anyway, and the fact that he was politically important at the time saved him.


If Cheney's prepared to expose a CIA agent, why not fling some dirt at the monstrously inconvenient Ritter?

Changing the subject so soon? We're not talking about anything that Cheney leaked, or about Plame. We're talking about law enforcement officers catching Ritter in the act.

Let me guess, Dick Cheney made Ritter arrange to meet an underage girl at Burger King for the purpose of masturbating in front of her, and then made Ritter show up, made law enforcement officers not under the authority of the federal government catch him, and somehow conveniently forgot to railroad Ritter in court?


It doesn't matter if there's nothing in it, because people such as yourself will be there to repeat the allegations.

Your obviously right because it worked so well. Nobody listens to Scott Ritter, do they? Hello- the man has been a major thorn in this administrations side; if Cheney was after him they'd go hunting together and one of them wouldn't come back.

We're not talking about pedophilia in its own context as a disqualifier either. We're talking about pedophilia as the only rational explanation for how Ritter was brought to completely reverse his position and start taking Saddam's blood money.


Which, incidentally, have no bearing on his judgment about the Iraqi UTTER LACK of WMDs.

See above, or do I have to draw it in crayon for you?



Likewise, when you actually read the article about the film, first, less than half a million dollars is not a huge budget for a movie. Second, and more to the point, nothing in the article you posted indicates that Ritter knew the money came from oil allocations.


Let me get this straight: an Iraqi national gave him 400,000 to make a film that says good things about Iraq, and that Iraqi National had the clout necessary to get him back into Iraq (which had kicked him out for spying), and yet he didn't smell a rat? That was CYA all the way; an upright person, if they had to explictly ask if the money had come from Saddam, wouldn't take the money. He obviously had reason to be suspicious, and all he did was go through the motions of covering his own butt, rather than walk away and seek other funding. As you said, 400,000 isn't even really that much money for a movie budget, right?


Not such a sharp axe after all - blunt enough to bounce off the log and smack you in the shin

Well, sounds like in your case, believing is not seeing, if you get my meaning. A toast to blind faith!


I think.

Try harder.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
George W. Bush was caught and pleaded guilty to DUI yet that doesn't stop anybody from maintaining that he has credibility in political issues.

And then there's Dick Cheney's two DUIs. Still holds credibility on political issues as well.

[edit on 19-2-2006 by heelstone]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Back to the topic ...
What an impressive play by American enemies:
#1 rule of terrorism:
Get someone else to fight your war for you. Let's stretch the enemy thin in Iraq and catch them with their pants down .... brilliant tactics .... way smarter than anything Rumsfeld or the Project for a New American Century American Project has EVER conceived



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Would everyone posting on this subject please check out the following web addresses

www.atimes.com...

www.hubbertpeak.com...

I think after you read the first internet address site, and then read the secondsite and several of the very interesting links from the second site, you will begin to wonder if the propaganda has blinded you to the truth of the matter. If you have the same brainpower as myself (slightly above average, and really read what's in front of you on these sites, this should change for you as it has for me from dicussion to real fear for my children. I sincerely hope you will visit these sites.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen here.

I guess there's something to it, afterall.

It's amazing, after Bush's freefall in public opinion, after every disaster that has occurred on his watch, they still lick their chops over Iran. These folks have more than a few screws loose.

My son (who has a wife pregnant and due in July) with their third kid, just got called up for Iraq duty. He's one month shy of gettin out of the Guard. Stop loss. I'm really pissed off now. It ain't right.

I know he raised his right hand, but the thing is, in many cases, Uncle Sam screws the little guy without a kiss. He's been there, doing his duty, and now one month before he's due to get out, they send him to their mess.

He'll have to do two months training at Ft. Sill and 16 months in Iraq.

It's a shame. Now they're not gonna be able to build that house. It'll be too much stress on his wife.


If they bomb Iran, his chances will plummet.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I guess its clear to all at ATS that Bush is gonna attack Iran.

He's insane if he does.


I guess everyone who makes less than $75 K a year should get ready to offer up one or three of their young relatives.

That's how its gonna be if Bush orders an attack on Iran.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
If Bush attacks Iran I'll be willing to believe the conspiracy biz. Why? Because it would be crazy. Period.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
It's now mid-July and Hizbollah and Israel are going at it.

The talk is Iran is behind Hizbollah, supportin them....

So the NeoCons, the same ones who got us into the Iraq mess, are banging the drums for war with Iran.

Turkey is talking about going down North to straighten things out htere. That is not good.

Things are getting crazy.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Things are getting crazy.


As opposed to the eutopia of peace and love the middle east was before the neocons came to power?


Who knows really, things could blow up more, or they could fizzle out and be just the lastest installment of the drama in that tranquil little region....



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I know Bush and Co want to attack Iran-D'UH.

What he lack's is a world accepted cause to do, oh, I don't know-how about a rescue chopper or boat being hit with Irianian missle-launched from Iran or Lebanon?


I heard something on cnn last night that scared the heck out of me


It said it was hard getting to many Americnas in Lebanon, so they were considering sending in marine helicopters to get people.

That is just begging for hezbolla/Iran to shot at them/knock one or more out of the sky.

That will get what most of the rest of the world "thinks" it wants-to get the US involved-directly.

The problem is the US would move and and continue what Israel is doing only much more so.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It said it was hard getting to many Americnas in Lebanon, so they were considering sending in marine helicopters to get people.


They HAVE been using Marines

apnews.myway.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
The Neocons are using this current trouble in Lebanon to foment the move to bomb Iran and Syria. Its insane. We can't contain Iraq, let alone those two countries.

You can't do what they want to do without ground troops. The ground troops aint there.





top topics
 
0
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join