Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 35
0
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

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.



Hey Vagabond,
Scott Ritter is solid. The BushCo. smear machine has been in hyperdrive over him. He is a solid threat to their illusion. There is no truth to those perverse allegations.
Time has born this truth out.

And the facts are staunchly on Ritter's side.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I cannot believe this thread has been here ECK, predicting the future.

I guess you pretty much came close to it.


[edit on 20-7-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I didn't predict the future. I just know these people in charge.

They are insane.

Being tied down in Iraq as we are, we can't do anything else - other than maybe vaporize N. Korea w/our awesome Navy.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Hey Vagabond,
Scott Ritter is solid. The BushCo. smear machine has been in hyperdrive over him.

And the facts are staunchly on Ritter's side.


There is a fact I've been waiting for and so far I have not seen it. If I see it, my opinion will change.

Has anyone contested the fact that Scott Ritter was infact arrested in that police sting? Has a cop come forward to say it was a setup or that it never happened? Has anything at all come out that indicates that Scott Ritter did absolutely nothing to land himself in that court room?

Because the facts which "stand staunchly on Ritter's side" at the moment are that after police posing as young girls arranged to meet with him for sexual purposes, the case got thrown out and sealed.

Would such facts stand staunchly on another politically influential person's side? What if Scooter Libby was "cleared" in the same manner?



Edit to add, re Neocons: although I'm no huge fan of the way they set up our little misadventure in Iraq (not to mention my suspicion that it's all just a little too stupid to be an accident) I have to disagree that we can't deal with Iran without ground troops. It doesn't take ground troops to knock out a few facilities and set them back a couple of years.

I suspect that if anything comes of the present mess with Israel that it will be an Israeli strike rather than American one (unless of course the war were to escalate to the point that Iran hits us first just for being there and unlikeable), however it would be an error to oppose dealing with Iran's nukes simply because the administration favors it. The United States has a congress for just this reason. It is well within our ability as citizens to reign our government in to performing the necessary act of self-preservation that is osstensibly Bush's motive without giving him a free enough hand to pursue ulterior motives vis. a ground war, an oil grab, rebuilding contracts, etc etc etc.

I think one of the problems we face is that Republican voters and Democrat voters automatically polarize rather than moving to the middle. When Bush says "we've gotta do X" and the Republicans are saying "well we do" and the Democrats are saying "no, cause he'll do more", doesn't it behoove the Republicans and Democrats to say to eachother... well wait a minute, we own this party from the grass roots, we can whip our congressmen, we can force them to restrict Bush to only that stated objective (which in this case can be done in a single day from the air), and everyone's happy.
As an added bonus, if Bush keeps whinning when we give him what he claims to wants then his true colors are shown to even the staunchest supporter and he's sunk.

There's more to politics than being for or against an administration. You've got to make time amidst the partisan wars to actually implement sound policy, then you can go back to fighting the ideological battles.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   
The US will take military action against Iran its only a matter of time.
Irans nuclear program suits both sides. Iran gets to exact foreign aid from the west and the government of Iran gains the support of other like minded regimes and there supporters.

The US gains a reason to launch an air offensive against Iran. The "real" targets will be the Iraqi insurgents supply lines and means of communication e.t.c
Bear in mind that Attacking Irans nuclear program will make a better Fox News story then bombing the insurgents supply lines. Using Irans nuclear program as cover will also draw people attention away from the incomptance of the current occupants of the Whitehouse.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Things are much stickier than that. US foreign policy is in a shambles. If these NeoCons have their way and we attack Iran, all hell will break loose.

Our government needs to do everything in its power to arrange a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. We're looking at a possible regional war. If that happens, you can bet we've seen nothing yet.

Our troops are in Iraq are gonna pay a very heavy price if things don't de-escalate soon.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
It is now July, almost August. That means there are only 4 months left in this year.
It is now guarenteed that the US will NOT invade Iran in '06 as the title of this thread predicts. Even if we wanted to.


That's all, carry on



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
It is now July, almost August. That means there are only 4 months left in this year.
It is now guarenteed that the US will NOT invade Iran in '06 as the title of this thread predicts. Even if we wanted to.


I'm not really convinced.
BTW did anyone see this July 22nd news article about the UK supplying Iran with materials to make a dirty bomb?

dailymail.co.uk

Looks like another false flag operation is imminent, perhaps a dirty bomb attack on Israel
or its US counterpart New York.

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 7-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty
I'm not really convinced.

It is now logistically and physically impossible to invade a country like Iran this far into the year.
If we started preparing and building up troops starting now (like during the first Gulf War when we started in early August), we wouldn't have a significant invasion force to handle a country like Iran until January at the earliest especially if we go at it alone.



edit: I'm not saying airstrikes aren't a possibility still

[edit on 26-7-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Things are much stickier than that. US foreign policy is in a shambles. If these NeoCons have their way and we attack Iran, all hell will break loose.


I think that if the US military occupied Iran there would be major problems. If the conflict was limted to an Air War the results could be mixed.



Our government needs to do everything in its power to arrange a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. We're looking at a possible regional war. If that happens, you can bet we've seen nothing yet.


Do you think that a cease fire would reduce the chances or prevent the US from attacking Iran ?



Our troops are in Iraq are gonna pay a very heavy price if things don't de-escalate soon.


Things are only going to get worse in Iraq before (if) they get better.
By occupying Iraq the Coalition of the willing has trigged the need for other military actions in order to solve just one of the problems in that country.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Iraq's prime minister wants the MEK (NeoCon backed Iranian resistance group) out of their country. BushCon support for this terrorist group only shows how thoroughly hypocritical they are. And they are doing everything in their power, especially w/what's happening in Lebanon, to instigate an overthrow in Iran.



Iraq plans to remove Pentagon’s proxy force
By Devlin Buckley
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Despite their terrorist status, the MKO has conducted a fairly successful lobbying campaign in Washington, DC, garnering support from the Pentagon, the White House, influential foreign policy groups, and several members of Congress.
onlinejournal.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Wont happen this year.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SenHeathen
Wont happen this year.


Got a magic future telling ball or what?...


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mammoth

Originally posted by SenHeathen
Wont happen this year.


Got a magic future telling ball or what?...

Just common sense. It takes months to build up an invasion force. More than four months....



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Mammoth

Originally posted by SenHeathen
Wont happen this year.


Got a magic future telling ball or what?...

Just common sense. It takes months to build up an invasion force. More than four months....


What he said, and I dont think we will go in on with foots stirring up the dust anyway. We dont have the forces to do it right now. If we did go to war with Iran and it was in the next few years it wont be but us blowing the unholy hell out of them and letting someone else or a host on nations go in on the ground.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Bush has called this situation in Lebanon "a moment of opportunity." Gotta love that Orwellian Bushspeak. War is peace. Night is day. An operation threatening to destabilize the entire region is an "opportunity."


Yes, dear readers, Bush sees this current confligration in Southern Lebanon to be his "opportunity" to begin engagement with Iran.

And contrary to what some believe, BushCo. and his vampires in the Rumsfeld circle have been plotting this Iran intervention/attack for quite some time. I did not start this thread with a crystal ball. It was simply what I've been seeing.

Proxy war in progress.....

Don't be surprised if American forces, Israeli citizens or God knows what and who else is attacked by Iranian backed terrorists. Par for the pretext course.

Oh yeah, and speaking of the veiled, Orwellian-speak, Condorleeza Rice was out there today mugging on Meet the Press.
What a joke Ms. Rice is. She spoke a great deal about corridors, or moments of opportunity, if you will. I'd be scared, if it wasn't so ludicrous.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
You know what really is scary, right now? The fact that there are still four months left in 2006. That's time enough for a war with Iran to break out.

How many Americans will fall for the pretext? Far too many, I fear.


I actually think its possible the Democrats might just take back the House and/or the Senate. Or, the Sen. and/or House, I shd say. I think the national sentiment is that strong for a change. At the top.

As nice as thought is, even to this old Republican, is that I fear what that shift would hasten. With Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in control of the major levers of power, at the moment, I truly fear what they would do, if backed into that corner.

I cannot see that bunch going quietly into the night with what might loom ahead.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Its looking like Bush and his loyal band of Neo Con vampires might just get that long-lusted after entree into Syria and Iran, yet. Because of Israeli activity on or near the Syrian border, Syria has vowed to enter the fray in support of Hezbollah. Escalation is the very last thing that is needed. The ol' PNAC vision is alive and kicking, tho. Just out of sight. Like someone else said, looks like ol' Duhbya might just get his Armageddon, yet.


This is all so very unecessary.




Chilling threat as Syria offer to join with Hezbollah
MICHAEL THEODOULOU AND BEN LYNFIELD
NEAR HAIFA, NORTHERN ISRAEL

Syria offer to join with militant group, Hezbollah Syrian foreign minister "welcomes" the prospect of war Israel continues to bomb Lebanon in response to attacks
news.scotsman.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
If Syria wants to attempt to invade Israel so be it, they will loose, Israel will get blamed and many more people will die. I see this as a possible excuse for action by Bush on Iran but I really hope he listens to his generals for once and doesn't attempt military action because again, Iran will loose but many many people will die.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Syrian and/or Iranian involvement will only escalate the pretext for US and maybe Israeli forces to attack sites inside Iran.

I can only hope cooler heads prevail. With the Bush administration, though, I have little hope of a positive outcome. They have proven time and again, they value war above peace. They don't "do" diplomacy, remember.

I'll say it again, and again, this whole conflagration is wholly unecessary. Far too many civilians of all ethnicities and faiths involved have been destroyed and terrorized.

War in iran.. '06.

A bumper sticker I was given reads:

W'04=endless war!
Project for the NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - PNAC.ORG


No truer statement has there ever been.


[edit on 8/7/06 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 8/7/06 by EastCoastKid]






top topics



 
0
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join