US will invade Iran in '06

page: 39
0
<< 36  37  38   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
That is my main concern. Some big attack on our interests or forces, or inside the U.S., pinned on Iranian assets would throw our country right back into panic/attack mode.

Bush, unfortunately, is absolutely foolish enuff to attack Iran.

That is the last thing on earth he needs to get our country into.

So....
What exactly are you basing all this stuff on?

Just curious


My concern is that some attack on our interests will occur - blamed on Iran - that will lay out the groundwork for a bombing campaign against Iran. With an occupation to follow.




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The Bush administration is doing everything in its power to provoke a confrontation with Iran.

We now have two Naval battle groups stationed in the Persian Gulf - basically on top of each other. They have no operational value regarding Iraq, so it can only be assumed that they are there for pending hostilities with Iran.

Look for Gulf of Tonkin 2.0.

The other day mines off the Iranian coast were triggered. The blasts could be felt in Iranian cities, it was reported.

BushCo. is supporting the MEK terrorists organization out of the Kurdish region in Iraq. They have been sowing trouble within Iran.

Our forces raided the Iranian consulate in Irbil two days ago taking their computers and four personnel.

If they had done that to a US consulate, we would have charged them with an act of war.

BushCo will pull the trigger the moment they find their pretext. Unless congress throws down a gauntlet.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Here's a thotful post on this matter from RJ Escow at Huffington Post:



RJ Eskow

Bio

01.13.2007
Iran: The Pale Horse Approaches
READ MORE: Iran, Iraq, Britain, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, United States, Middle East
Sometime in the next several months an announcer will interrupt regularly scheduled programming to introduce the President who, blinking rapidly, will announce a series of air strikes against Iran. That announcement will probably use religious rhetoric that makes a tragic situation even worse.

Iran, Iraq, a wreck. That's how you conjugate war in the Middle East, and Iran is the future tense.

What's worse, the government continues to employ heated theological language that plays well to its base but hurts our efforts to reduce terrorism.

There will be little or no loss of American life as a result of airstrikes against Iran ... right away.

To read the whole post:
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
You are right EKC Bush is trying very hard to hurry up and get his goal in the middle east finished.

He yesterday said that he will go ahead with his plans for the redeployment of troops using whatever funds he still have as now, he will not wait for the congress.

Now a republican congressman wants a bill to stop bush from attacking Iran without congress approval.

This alone is a big red flag of the intentions of Bush in the middle east, his personal and corporate goal and he care less what the American people, congress or anything nation in the world wants.

He is a mad man on a mission, he may not have invaded or attacked Iran in 2006 but defenitely he is working on it right now.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
So right you are, Marg.

I won't be surprised when I wake up, turn on the tube and see Diane Sawyer telling me that Iran has done something atrocious towards us, and that we had to bomb them.

Its gonna happen, unless an act of God happens and congress actually shuts down BushCo. somehow.


[edit on 1/14/07 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I won't be surprised when I wake up, turn on the tube and see Diane Sawyer telling me that Iran has done something atrocious towards us, and that we had to bomb them.


Bombing certain targets in Iran may not be such a bad idea. Anyway judging by this thread congress isn't to keen for cross border inclusions little alone air strikes or an invasion of Iraq.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11


Bombing certain targets in Iran may not be such a bad idea.


Bombing Iran would be the dumbest, most dangerous thing we could do.

Our military can't even handle security in Baghdad/Anbar as it is. And that's no slam on the military (if they are not given a clear mission, and the tools to accomplish said mission, it is the fault of those who sent them). Which is the case today.

Our Army and Marine Corps are in breakdown mode. The last thing on earth we need to do is put the hand not tied behind our back into the next, even bigger hornets nest.

The best estimates say Iran is at least 10 yrs away from acquiring the bomb. Don't believe the propoganda exclaiming we're in grave danger. Don't buy the same rotten bill of goods that got us into this quagmire in Mesopotamia.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
All eyes are on an April '07 attack on Iranian nuclear targets and oil installations.

US carrier group Stennis to arrive in the Gulf mid-late February.

Watch for beefed up US Air Force (in-air refuelers) presence in region.

President Bush is sending advanced Patriot Missile systems throughout region and to Israel.

The new congressional turn-over put the breaks on this nefarious operation; but plans were merely put on the backburner.

Cheney is holding the fuel and has given Bush the matches. All that is now needed is for all the pieces to be put into place and for another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident to give Bush the go-ahead to ignite what will be the most catastrophic military move our nation has ever made.

It's five minutes to midnight and the madmen must be stopped.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Rep. Walter Jones (R., N.C.) may have just thrown down the ultimate roadblock to this madness. This blog entry from Huffington Post explains it nicely:



James Pinkerton
01.18.2007
Walter Jones Meets Rudyard Kipling



Now Jones has a new cause: making sure that the United States does not go to war with Iran without specific Congressional authorization. In other words, no "accidental" spillage of the fighting from Iraq into Iran. It's worth underscoring that Jones is no dove, nor even a Christian pacifist. He supported, and supports, the war in Afghanistan, and proudly represents the Marine bases at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, as well as Seymour Johnson AFB.

But the courtly Jones has chosen to put principle, as he sees it, ahead of partisan or personal loyalty. As he said at today's press conference at the House Press Gallery, "the Bible and the Constitution" guide him in all his actions. And so far, he said, with visible humility, the 600,000 people he represents agree with him as he prepares to challenge many of his fellow Republicans on the issue of presidential war powers.

Mindful of the war drums beating loudly--many from within the Executive Branch--in favor of a military confrontation with Iran, Jones makes a simple point: The White House must ask Congress for permission. To that end, Jones has authored House Joint Resolution 14, which would require the President to "receive specific authorization ... prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran." Six other Congressmen joined him today: Neil Abercrombie (D-HA), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), John Larson (D-CT), Marty Meehan (D-MA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX). The other four co-sponsors, who could not be in attendance, include Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).


This ain't no peacenik we're talking about. Jones is a conservative Republican who staunchly supports our military/national defense.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
All eyes are on an April '07 attack on Iranian nuclear targets and oil installations.

US carrier group Stennis to arrive in the Gulf mid-late February.

Watch for beefed up US Air Force (in-air refuelers) presence in region.

President Bush is sending advanced Patriot Missile systems throughout region and to Israel.

The new congressional turn-over put the breaks on this nefarious operation; but plans were merely put on the backburner.

Cheney is holding the fuel and has given Bush the matches. All that is now needed is for all the pieces to be put into place and for another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident to give Bush the go-ahead to ignite what will be the most catastrophic military move our nation has ever made.

It's five minutes to midnight and the madmen must be stopped.


I think it will either be a Tonkin type incident or a wham, it's happened like we have seen with the air strikes in Somalia (Only much worse, and more catrostrophic in consequences for the region)

In either case, the consequences, would not bear thinking about if it was not so important to consider them and realise what the results of such an act would entail.

I saw on BBC2 Newsnight, about the 'People's Mujahadeen', Iranian exiles who oppose the Iranian government, and who sought safety with Saddam in the 80's while fighting with the Iraqis against the Iranians, and staying in Iraq under Saddam's protection until the 2003 invasion.

If the NeoCons are betting on the People's Mujahadeen to overthrow Iran's government, have popular Iranian support, and be benevolent then, well, they are backing a dead horse.

The People's Mujahadeen advocate that men and women should deny their sexual feelings, and if married, they should divorce, and have no sexual desires but that devoted to the People's Mujahadeen. They treat their leaders like Gods, and have created a form of leadership cult.

Reminded me of '1984' by Orwell.

I have seen footage of their parades of the 80's and 90's. Very Stalinist.


The everyday Iranian does not really go along with that sort of theory of life.

The fact these 'People's Mujahadeen' bombed parts of Iran in a terror campaign before fighting alongside the Iraqis in the Iraq-Iran War meant they lost all credibility with the Iranians, who, whether they liked the Ayatollahs or not, still sided with their country over Iraq's war of aggression.

The other alternative as the NeoCons would see it, to be a Iranian government in exile would be the remnants of the Shah's family.

The majority of the Iranians don't want them back, not at all.

So that rules the monarchists out.

The rest don't really have credibility in Iran either, most are unheard of and have not been or set foot on Iran in 20 years or more.

But knowing all this, what do the NeoCons care about popularity and credibility?

The NeoCons for now will satisfy themselves with funding the People's Mujahadeen alongside the Kurdish fighters to wage a dirty war inside Iran's borders, Iran in turn will continue to help the Iraqi Shia Militias.

A low-fi war of proxies across the Iraq-Iran border.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

This ain't no peacenik we're talking about. Jones is a conservative Republican who staunchly supports our military/national defense.



The same can probably be said about Chuck Hagel, a US Republican senator, who has said on two occasions about Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq:

"This is not strategy! This is a ping pong game with American lives!"

and that Bush's decision represented:

"the most dangerous foreign policy since Vietnam."





top topics
 
0
<< 36  37  38   >>

log in

join