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.

 

IRAN is calling the USA's BLUFF

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaRaSiTe
Now christianity aside i believe the jewish god will prevail since the message of their god is love and peace not murder death and destruction so you can wake up in paradise with a bunch of whores..........


Parasite, I don't think this characterization of Islam is any of the following:
1. Directly relevant to the topic at hand.
2. Respectful to other members.
3. By virtue of the above, compliant with T&C
4. Indicative of the ability to formulate a strong logical argument.


Religion just isn't the point here, and all I will bother to say on it is that if I can't be nothing when I die, my second choice is definately to be with lots of women.


Back on topic though if you please, may I point out yet another aspect of this supposed trap into which America has stumbled which seems unlikely.

The proposition that the threatened destruction of Israel poses a serious concern for US foreign policy, especially where the elites are concerned, seems rather unlikely. For one thing, the fall of Israel would do away with the last century's fetish for the idea that the rebirth of the Israeli state heralds the coming of the apocalypse. If Israel were destroyed and Armageddon did not ensue, Christians would in many cases conclude that Israel must be raised yet again before the end times can come about, thus they will be far less resistant to many of the assaults on liberty which many Christians oppose more for religious reasons than for love of liberty. For instance, they would not at this point be allowed to equip humans with RFID chips to identify/locate them, no matter what benefits might be purported, not because people guard their privacy jealously, but because evangelicals would equate it to the mark of the beast. With Israel gone and the apocalypse safely off in the future, some of that opposition would potentially subside, which is good for the Powers That Be.

Furthermore, supposing still that the PTB are secular in nature (keeping in mind that European power structures and to a lesser extent American ones afterwards have always been fairly anti-semetic, apparently holding a grudge over the fact that they poked a bunch of holes in our God) they'd probably be all too happy to be rid of that perpetual political and economic thorn in our side which thus far they have not been able to dispense with because of the number of Christians in our democracies who view Jews as the chosen people.

So for several reasons, I find it difficult to believe that a threat to Israel would pose any great deterrent to the United States, except in the unlikely event that the powers that be in this world are in fact a bunch of fanatical Christians who see it as their first and foremost duty to stave off the coming of the apocalypse.


Then back to economics and the military situation: the economy moves goods and services- period. Money plays a facilitating roles, but has not intrensic value and is by no means actually necessary. As long as goods are produced and distributed, the economy is fine. If the oil tap gets shut, the majors powers shift into command economy mode and either sprint to get off of oil or fight a world war over the oil.

Best case scenario (from the Iranian point of view): The world is destroyed in a nuclear war and Muslims and Christians alike weep and gnash their mandibles upon discovering that one of the Eastern religions was right and that their decision to follow warlike faiths has lead them to reincarnation as something akin do a worm on an asteroid somewhere in some desolate and frozen corner of the universe.

Worst case scenario (from the Iranian point of view): Things get completely out of hand, America conquers Iran, dominates the oil, cuts others off to stunt their growth, American Corporatism becomes the governing oligarchy of the world and I move to Erinberg, AZ where I spend the rest of my natural life in a tent on the backwaters of the Colorado River, catching my own food and carving subversive chronicles of history in rocks for future generations.




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaRaSiTe
i believe the jewish god will prevail since the message of their god is love and peace not murder death and destruction

So the God that is Jewish is a pacifist?



how many chapters in the koran can with so much deatail describe what is happening in the world right now?

a lot of the hadith FYI, which has about the same reliability as the Bible.



"the real ones who live by what they preach" walk in love and peace and sharing and caring.

yup good ol' C of E!



islam teaches that all religions and people submit to islam by force if neccessary.

you're wrong, to put it simply



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

posted by The Vagabond
Religion just isn't the point here, Back on topic though if you please, may I point out yet another aspect of this supposed trap into which America has stumbled which seems unlikely.

The proposition the destruction of Israel poses a serious concern for US foreign policy, seems unlikely. With Israel gone and the apocalypse safely off in the future, that opposition would potentially subside, which is good for the Powers That Be. PTB.

The PTB are secular in nature. They'd be happy to be rid of that perpetual political thorn in our side which thus far they have not been able to dispense with because of the number of Christians in our democracies who view Jews as the chosen people. Then back to the military situation. If the oil tap gets shut, the majors powers shift into command economy mode and either sprint to get off of oil or fight a world war over the oil.

Best case scenario (from Iran’s POV): The world is destroyed in a nuclear war and Muslims and Christians alike weep and upon discovering one of the Eastern religions was right and their decision to follow warlike faiths has lead them to reincarnation as a worm on an asteroid in some desolate and frozen corner of the universe.

Worst case scenario (from Iran’s POV): Things get completely out of hand, America conquers Iran, dominates oil, cuts others off to stunt their growth, Wal-Mart becomes the governing oligarchy of the world and Vagabond moves to Erinberg, AZ to spend the rest of his life in a tent on the backwaters of the Colorado River, catching his food and carving subversive chronicles of history in rocks. [Edited by Don W]


The US has been “cool” with India, Pakistan and Israel all armed with nuclear bombs but outside the N-PT. Off and on we feign concern that NK will or has joined the outsiders. For the price of 3 nuclear power generating plants, NK may be solvable. Nukes-wise. A bargain in my POV. Kashmir is the target over which Pakistan and India feel the need for nukes. Many of the people who live there want an independent Kashmir, much like the Kurds and Balochi elsewhere want.

The US has not normalized relations with Iran since the 1980 “October Surprise” that catapulted the Islamic Republic into existence. Older Iranians still carry resentment towards the US for its part in the 1953 coup when the Shah was put back in control of the country. Younger Iranians are nationalistic. The president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the ruler of the country. He is the head of state. He rattles our cage by engaging in anti-Israel hyperbole. Vicious rhetoric. This may play some role in the Shia versus Sunni contest. The ruler is the Supreme Ayatollah, the head of government. He does not speak in public.

I cannot find any better reason to get alarmed over Iran than I could find over the false claim of WMDs in Iraq. Or the forged papers relating to yellow uranium from Niger.

It is my opinion the Republicans are using Iran as they have successfully used the Nine Eleven Event in 2002 and 2004. As a pure electoral ploy. War trumps economy! Security is paramount. Trust the Maximum Leader. Erratic? Sure he is. But that is to our advantage for no one can be sure what he won’t do. He acts on our behalf and under no constraints. Let’s go one more time with Geo W. King of the Hill.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I cannot find any better reason to get alarmed over Iran than I could find over the false claim of WMDs in Iraq. Or the forged papers relating to yellow uranium from Niger.


Um, not to nitpick, but there -was- a reason to be alarmed over the WMD claims in Iraq... unless claims which regardless of their veracity are likely to result in a war are not alarming. Some folks consider war alarming.

On top of that bare minimum cause for alarm, there was infact evidence that Saddam was not fully complying with his duty to disarm. (don't go into orbit before you've finished reading- be intellectually honest for a moment). Saddam probably did have some pathetic shadow of his former weapons program which could have been reconstituted. HOWEVER, the formulation and execution of US warplans do not lend themselves to the conclusion that the primary interest of the US in entering that war actually had anything to do with WMD. They were, if anything, a "bonus"- a good deed that couldn't help but be at least partially accomplished (but was ultimately not carried through to an acceptable standard) in the course of doing the other things which this administration was more concerned with doing in Iraq. To be specific, securing a strong strategic position which separates Iran from Saudi Arabia and Israel, controls the rear of Israel's Syrian enemies, thus detering war there and making it possible for supply to them in the event of a war to be interdicted, and of course, by no coincidence, also controls a large quantity of an important and exceedingly scarce strategic resource.


It is my opinion the Republicans are using Iran as they have successfully used the Nine Eleven Event in 2002 and 2004.


There's not much rhyme or reason to the Republican Party's policy (and lack thereof in certain fields) while it has held control of the government. I think it's giving them a little more credit than the facts warrant to suggest that there is any great level of coordination, especially considering how badly the methods of the past five years are threatening to fail based on current polls.

Bush, strangely enough, seems to actually believe what he's saying, and just as scarry, a certain core of his constituency which refuses to fall below 30% so far also seem to believe. I leave it to you to decide whether or not that confirms certain suspicions regarding his IQ which have been voiced since the 2000 campaign. If I may borrow a favorite phrase of some of my neo-con friends, Bush has been drinking the koolaid. He's on board for the PNAC agenda.

In relation to one another however, Congress and Bush are just doing what they have to do. Bush can't veto their stuff and Congress has to give him much of what he asks for. If the party in power starts infighting they'll be taken out of power, so they've got to adopt an agenda, even a bad one, and defend it like their daughter's virtue, which is exactly what the Congress has done for an Iraq war that I don't believe they would have tollerated this long if Bush were the exact same man with a D after his name rather than an R.

The fate of the Iran issue becomes clear after this November. The Republicans have to stave off a Democratic win, then they can draw the line in the sand against a lame duck and start positioning themselves for the 2008 presedential race by creating an agenda of their own, sans Bush and the PNAC believers. If John McCain hadn't followed his conscience at the expense of party politics by siding with the Dems, he'd be the logical choice to lead that charge. Now I think they've got to find themselves a very quiet, very Republican dark horse candidate, and staying out of a war with Iran is likely to be high on his agenda.

The question is... will Bush bully them into starting the war before 2008?

Ah Politics... what a cluster ****. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head for now. I'll turn it over a little more and see ya later perhaps.

Edit to add: Ask Bush's daddy if war trumps economics.
Interesting change of the 1992 theme here. This time the hawk republican is out, so the perot character who pushes the economic agenda- this time a Republican rather than an indie- has a straight fight with the democratic challenger. They'll need a real outsider though to disown the war and run as economic reformers while they've still got that R behind their name. I'll try to figure out who it will be.

[edit on 6-5-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Seems pretty clear to me that the far-right Republicans want a war with Iran. If you paid close attention to Conservative politics in the U.S., you'd know that they've been noodling this one around since the end of the Cold War.

I recently published my first book, and I did make the case that we'd still be at war in 2014. Naturally, I used fiction to make my point. Don't need any law suits. Google SBN 1933538325 and you'll see what sort of trouble I got myself in to.

I'm not sure that the current Bush administration expected the Iranians to push back quite so hard. I have no doubt they are over-joyed, but still...I'd like to think that even those neo-cons would take notice of what they started.

My guess is that they will use the eventual fruition of the Iranian nuclear program to justify pre-emptive action. I'm wondering if Iran will rish for an undergorund test. I doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

As a historian, and an arm-chair general, I do see how the Iranians could win early gains. With or without a coalition, this hypothetical war stands to last at least two years, and possibly longer. If the Iranians are smart, they'll start laying in supplies now. They've already pulled their money from Western banks. If they take steps to ride out an embargo, they could fight a war.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   
This reminds me of the games "Command and Conquer Generals" and "Rise of Nations" both for PC

At the end of every multiplayer game it seems to come down to who built the most superweapons and who gets the first strike in.

After that, it's over.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

posted by The Vagabond
Um, not to nitpick, but there -was- a reason to be alarmed over the WMD claims in Iraq . . unless claims which regardless of their veracity are likely to result in a war are not alarming. Some folks consider war alarming. [All edited by Don W]


Bad syntax. On my part. Your critique is valid. It only arises because I erred in the way I expressed myself. My excuse is the 5000 character limit on postings. I had to cut to fit. OK, you are right on alarm and war.


“ . . there was in fact evidence that Saddam was not fully complying with his duty to disarm.”


Yes. I’d have said “reports of evidence” rather than “evidence” but that shows our relative perspectives. Either way, I read that Saddam made 2 blunders. 1) that he did not want his neighbors to know he was dis-armed, hence his on again off again submissions to inspections, and 2) he did not believe the US would actually go to war with him as the publicly stated reasons were more conjured than real.


“Iraq. To be specific, [US objectives were] securing a strong strategic position which (1) separates Iran from Saudi Arabia and Israel, (2) controls the rear of Israel's Syrian enemies, thus (3) deterring war there and making it possible to (4) supply them in the event of a war, and, by no coincidence, also (5) controls a large quantity of an important and exceedingly scarce strategic resource.”


Jeez. 5 perfectly legitimate foreign policy goals of the US. Now why am I so against this Administration for dong just what I’d do if I was in there? Maybe I’d have tried making a deal with Saddam. We had NATO, SEATO and CENTO. Maybe we could have made a METO? Middle East Treaty Organization.


There's not much rhyme or reason to the Republican Party's policy while it has held control of the government. I think it's giving them a little more credit than the facts warrant . . “


I see it [current GOP policy] as a commitment to complete the “Reagan Revolution” of privatizing America. To limit the Federal government’s role in our lives to national defense, debt payment and substituting dispute resolution forums for what now passes for regulators. Oh, and not to forget SDI.


Bush, strangely enough, seems to actually believe what he's saying, and just as scarey, also a certain core of his constituency which refuses to fall below 30%. I leave it to you to decide whether or not that confirms certain suspicions regarding his IQ. If I may borrow a favorite phrase of some of my neo-con friends, Bush has been drinking the Koolaid. He's on board for the PNAC agenda.


As in Nebekanezer’s dream, current fiscal policy is the legs and feet of iron and clay. OTOH, that policy is no accident, IMO. Aside: The welfare state cannot be abolished on an up and down vote in Congress. So what to do? DE-fund it. By continuously running government in the red, the point will come when the tax base will not support the welfare state. And, a piece of golden serendipity, the rich will have accumulated so much capital in the meantime, the poor will never catch up. The deserving (rich) will have the world they have always been entitled to. And the undeserving (poor) shunted aside to compete at 3rd world wages. Gated communities to insulate the rich from urban reality. Publicly funded private schools. No estate tax. No dividends tax. No capital gains tax. No tax on foreign income. A mercenary Armed Forces to spare their sons a disgusting draft and exposure to death and injury. And, a FLAT tax by default.


The question is . . will Bush bully them into starting the war before 2008?


I can’t see how Bush could possibly start a second front. He can’t end the on-going war on the first front. The American public will not “buy” a second war. Whether with Iran or North Korea. Or Venezuela or Bolivia. And etc.


Ask Bush's daddy if war trumps economics. The Perot character pushed the economic agenda. This time [2008] a Republican has a straight fight with the Dem challenger. The GOP will need a real outsider to disown the war and be credible to run as an economic reformer while they have that R behind their name. I'll try to figure out who it will be.


In defense of my statement, Vagabond, I remind the highly successful war came first then the economy went bust just at the election. I believe Perot got 90% GOP votes which if true, without Perot, King George 1 would have won.

Yes, McCain is out. I’ve never been good at forecasting politics. Hmm?


[edit on 5/7/2006 by donwhite]



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

Originally posted by Mehran


I agree with you that we will get what we want and nothing can stop us.

Wow. You guys are really full of yourselves. If we wanted to, we could destroy your country 15 times over. And the only country bluffing here is Iran.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Rambling madman #2..on and on and on..do you really think anyone bothers to read your endless posts of ramblings? Or that the US could really nuke a country and not get nuked in return..can you like just post a summary of your non-sense?




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Agit8d... there are a lot of things a guy can survive in a game of cards, but thinking it's a bluff when it ain't isn't one of them.

We can try our luck with those trends if we feel like we can hack it...

OR we can attack Iran, let them virtually cripple Israel with their conventional weapons, let Israel nuke them in retaliation, walk into what's left of Iran to conquer the ashes and get the oil flowing again, and we're in charge then.

That second option is ugly for everyone in the short-term, but IF America plays it smart, actually good in the most sinister way for America.

If the oil fields go up and America ends up occupying Iraq and Iran when the dust settles we set the production levels and the only thing anybody can do about it is start a nuclear war and get themselves killed too.

Americans will be have to weather a depression and then go back to being underemployed in a retail/service economy, and whatever Iranians aren't dead will basically be pumping gas for us, on our terms rather than their own.

The big winners? The corporate power structure: more power over their employees because the employees need jobs, oil leverage to secure the profitable peace between China and America, and of course no more pesky local governments in economically important areas like the middle east.

Sorry pal, you Iranians can just get in line to be screwed right behind the American consumer and the Chinese working man. For you to be all gung-ho for a war, when we both know dang well that the elites who start and profit from the war aren't gonna be on the field risking their lives, is probably funny as hell to the people who are doing this to us.

Imagine two shrimp on your dinner plate fighting over which one gets eaten last... that's what you look like to the boys in the oil industry.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
Rambling madman #2..on and on and on..do you really think anyone bothers to read your endless posts of ramblings?

Do you, jajabinks, really think anyone bothers to read your endless posts of ramblings? I would as soon as read Vagabond's mentionings than read your truly nonsensical commentaries. Bet.




Or that the US could really nuke a country and not get nuked in return...

The US is nuking no one last I heard and read.
Your reading or watching what, exactly?





can you like just post a summary of your non-sense?


Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids....







seekerof


[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Well at least my posts can be read in a day and have a point, he goes on and on and theres always this "we're gonna nuke Iran and they will all be dead and the ones left will be pumping gas for us.."

[comment removed ]

[edit on 5/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
It’s not a bluff folks.

The U.S. and her Allies have heavily militarized the region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Iraq, Afghanistan and the various auxiliary countries in the area to a lesser degree – it didn’t happen through a series of coincidences.

Let’s face reality for second; the lubricant for the world’s economy is growing scarce, not because there is any less of it – but because there is a growing need for it. Well, there is less of it – but it’s not so much the decrease in supply, but the rapid growth of demand. Now, the majority of this precious resource is controlled by 1) Countries not conducive to the agenda of “Western” nations or 2) Countries deemed “unstable”. The events that took place on September 11th 2001 are the exclamation point behind this statement.

Iran converting to the Euro is a short term problem. The dollar isn’t worth a dollar because of oil – it is worth a dollar because the American people have placed their faith in the fact that it is indeed worth a dollar. There is a reason for “In God We Trust” being inscribed on our currency. History has shown that America can exist in an isolationist state. We can produce everything we need and still have a surplus. Yes, even oil – and oil is all the Middle East has to offer the rest of the world aside from cultural and historic influence – which has been squandered away. Furthermore, due to the political atmosphere of the region, America is accelerating her migration away from fossil fuels – other countries are more than likely going to follow suit. Then where will the Middle East be?

Now, North Korea – why mess with them? That is China’s problem, not ours. If the NK strikes Japan with a nuke, the United States would be compelled to allow Japan to develop such weapons. Do you think China wants this – most certainly not! Alternatively, if she strikes the U.S. or one of her Allies the United States would be instantly redeemed with an “I told you so” (in reference to being placed on the Axis of Evil). The NK “problem” despite its appearances is a win-win for the West.

Now, let’s address China and Russia in regards to their stance on Iran; it’s not that they support Iran, rather they are concerned with how such events would directly impact their respective economies – that’s it. Take a look at China’s issues with Taiwan, then let’s look at the issues the United States has with Iran. It doesn’t take an expert analyst to discern the “I’ll scratch you back if you scratch mine” scenario in play. Russia, she is like a stubborn mule – but she will come around. In fact, just recently they were pretty much backed into a corner as you had Cheney calling them un-democratic publicly with Mr. Bush in the background saying “now, now, they don’t mean it”. Russia has to save face in light of these accusations. I would not want Putin’s job at this point in time.

America has had to make her concessions, under heavy criticism she will be closing Gitmo once it has been decided what to do with the detainees located there. She is revising the treatment of prisoner’s under pressure from the U.N. Really, the detainee issue is the biggest thorn in her side – and in fact I wouldn’t be surprised to see that the U.N. will be taking over that aspect for the GWOT in the near future.

Did I miss anything?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This reply is to the OP..

Iraq aint crap man.. I can guarentee you that the US will pull every soldier from Iraq to the Iran/Iraq border and let the rest of Iraq fall to rubble and civil war.

All it would take is 2 weeks of our Army Engineers plowing a fortification along the Iran/Iraq border.. which is what is basically there now. We cut ourselves off from Iraq and Concentrate on Iran. That's what most the terrorists in Iraq want, and the only people that would follow is AlQueda loyals and maybe a few other hardlined groups.

I love reading these posts about how we cant handle Iraq. Our 100,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq have been chilling out and strolling the streets..

We're STALLING..

Watch and see. The United States will rather let an entire country crumble into civil war then to let Iran call their bluff. Iran is hit.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
SeekerOf, why is it most of your posts seem to attack the POSTER rather than the post? Grow up Son.

I dont think IRAN will be a walk in the park for the USA.

the USA let the cat out of the bag in terms of there military OPTIONS when hitting a country that ultimately isnt a coastal concept.

I mean, why would the Crazy Nookular Moolah's remain in there obvious hideouts?
Keep all there military aspects in the publically advertised military bases?

Obviously this Suicidal maniac of a president for Iran has the backpacking of his superiors...
He is marching as to war... What else could you call it ?
In terms of the game.. Iraq was bombed by Israel much earlier in the programme than Iran is now.

Iran are actively making nuclear material.
Already have purchased various weapons components from Nkorea...
How far to they really have to go?

As for the charade iran are playing out in the media in terms of successful enrichment,
Do you really think they are going to tell you when they have successfully created weapons grade material?.. ooo we are at 1.8%, oooh we are at 2.5 %
Hell no,
But one thing I can gaurantee,
as soon as they hit the level needed for CIVILIAN use... they stop announcing there current enrichment level....
Because they would like to convince all the gullable people out there ( because they're the ones you need to focus on - Bush ) that they arent playing up.
Compare this to saddam, whom ALLOWED inspectors in after enough uproar.. and who had NO Nuclear programme...

The USA has gone on and on and on about the same few reactors and test plants..
So why would Iran keep their work IN those buildings? why not create a mountanous test facility that NO ONE knows about...

In terms of cutting yourselves off from IRAQ.. that I dont think would be a very smart IDEA at all.

The entire Iraqi population is counting on you to restore order..
youve gone in, WRONGFULLY, and removed all required facilities to SUSTAIN life.
there's an infinate number of armed, militia controlling the streets... making every day life for every day people.. almost impossible.

If you pull out , ( the americans ) move everything to the border and start forming fortifications... You going to get attacked. on both fronts.
Even hitler knew a 2 front war was bad..
Bush is stupid.. and holds a LOT of similarities with that madman..
but creating a long line.. in between 2 hostile countries isnt a good idea.
Because all the Iraqi males, after they realise there's no point in trying to live a civilised life when the militia contorl Iraq, will jsut join the militia.
why get paid 5$ to slave away... when you can get $50 to shoot a few bullets at the americans.

the USA will be attacked from both sides of the desert.
and 150,000 ISNT ENOUGH to control Iraq, and move on Iran.

I dont believe the USA is stalling,
I believe they are stuck.

The USA cannot hit Iran, without causing major world wide condemnation. Simply because they screwed up by hitting Iraq.
The USA cannot hit Iran, without putting its largest military endevour ( in iraq ) within easy range of Irans missles. Thats 150,000 reasons for Iran to lob just as many missles at Iraq as it does Israel.
The USA cannot let Iran carry on, because somewhere down the line, a finatical palestinian will drive that newly created crude nuclear bomb into israel, and detonate it.

Israel cannot hit Iran, simply because they dont have the firepower in the air big enough to completely remove the threat.
Israel cannot use Nuclear weapons.. cause.. cough cough.. they dont have any..
and it would be very hypocritical.

So what is the world to do ?

Unfortunately, because of PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, there is no solution to this problem.
No solution that atleast ensures a positive outcome.

The USA isnt stalling, the USA doesnt want to go in, but because of theyre bravado, they're hot headedness and their gun totting mentality.. There citizens are going to pay the ultimate price, for keeping this leader in power.

Iran is not bluffing.
Atleast not the man who counts, the president.

He belives a large scale war will fulfill his religous belief.
And we know to what lengths finatical muslims will go for there beliefs.
He believes the struggle for muslims world wide is the removal of Israel.

How is he bluffing?
He's already told you his cards. He's already told you his thoughts on the situation.
where exactly is he trying to trick you?
He knows the USA doesnt have the guts and the muster ( especially this president )
to stike them with nuclear weapons, or to send in ground troops.
Israel is the only option on the table.
And in irans pov, that is only ensuring his ultimate goal on a much more world wide ACCEPTED scale.

Iran has known for a long time it was coming.
Either from USA and or Israel.
Why else for the rhetoric?
The insane leaders, and stupid leaders are marching us to war.
neither has a happy idea for an end!



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Oh yea strolling the streets and getting ambushed 60-100 times a day, getting killed everyday, costing 5 billion$ a month just to tread water, paying fragmented- spies of a sham Iraqi Army cash so they can defect every month, and control 'some' of the territory, with oil production at it's lowest since, well ever..

it's a real cakewalk..


Originally posted by QuietSoul

I love reading these posts about how we cant handle Iraq. Our 100,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq have been chilling out and strolling the streets..




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

posted by crisko: “Iran is not a bluff folks. The U.S. and her allies have heavily militarized the region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Iraq, Afghan and smaller countries in the area to a lesser degree. It didn’t happen as a coincidence. Face reality. Oil lubricates the world’s economy. It is growing scarce, not because there is any less of it but because there is a growing need for it. Well, there is less of it but it’s not so much the decrease in supply but the rapid growth of demand. [Edited by Don W]


I can’t accept your conclusion, Mr Crisko, that the looming shortage of oil is best laid to demand and we can disregard supply. I am a subscribed to the Hubbert’s Peak school of gloom. Many try to discredit Hubbert, as also many have ballyhooed Malthus. The fact forecasted dates have proved wrong in both cases does not alter the underlying bases for either of the predictions. As long as arable land is finite and the Earth’s bounty of petroleum is finite, we will ultimately face the consequences both men have predicted. We are not making plans for either. From “M. King Hubbert” at www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/


“ . . the majority of this precious resource is controlled by 1) countries not conducive to the agenda of Western powers or 2) countries deemed “unstable.” The Nine Eleven Event is the exclamation point behind this statement. The dollar isn’t worth a dollar because of oil – it is worth a dollar because the American people have placed their faith in the fact that it is indeed worth a dollar. There is a reason for “In God We Trust” being inscribed on our currency.


As I read history, Voltaire was right when he said, “God is on the side of the largest battalion.” Whether or not Pres. Eisenhower’s 1953 “pay-back” to the South’s Religious Right by adding “Under God” to the Pledge and IGWT to the currency - Lincoln had put it on our coins in 1864 - has resulted in some kind of special, Godly progress, I will not admit. I will admit I don’t like mixing God into our politics and even less in international politics.

As for the 2 classes of countries, 1) those amenable to the West, say pliable, and 2) those which are not stable; that seems to be a more agreeable and reasonable assertion. The former is more susceptible to proof than the latter.


History has shown America can exist in an isolationist state. We can produce everything we need and still have a surplus. Yes, even oil. Furthermore, America is accelerating away from Middle East fossil fuels and other countries are likely going to follow suit. Then where will the Middle East be?


Uh, Mr Crisko, smoking peyote is not legal except in OR.


North Korea? Why mess with them? NK is China’s problem. If NK nukes Japan, the US would allow Japan to develop such a weapon. Alternatively, if NK strikes the US or one of our allies the US would be instantly redeemed with an “I told you so” - in reference to being identified as one of the Axis of Evil. Hail Caesar! Hail George W! The NK “problem” despite its appearances is a win-win for the West.


I’m not so confident of this scenario, as you seem to be, Mr Crisko


Let’s address China and Russia on Iran; it’s not that they support Iran, rather they are concerned with how such events would directly impact their respective economies - that’s it.


That was quick!


Look at China’s issues with Taiwan . . look at the issues the US has with Iran. It doesn’t take an expert to discern the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” scenario is in play. Russia, like a stubborn mule, will come around. In fact, as you heard VP Cheney calling them un-democratic publicly . . Russia has to save face . . I would not want Putin’s job . . under heavy criticism America will be closing Gitmo . . America is revising treatment of prisoner’s under pressure from the U.N. The U.N. will be taking over that aspect of the GWOT in the near future. Did I miss anything? [Edited by Don W]


Cripes, Mr Crisko, I hope not. You’ve left me speechless. Let’s hope Taipei and Boeing - which after Cheney’s pop off, lost a big Aeroflot contract to Airbus - see it as clearly as you.


[edit on 5/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Mr Crisko,

anyone who says the dropping of nuclear weapons is a ' win win ' situation needs to be mentally assessed.

Iran is already purchasing material from Nkorea, russia and is great trading partners with Russia.

russia and china wont sit idly by while the US takes over the Iranian Oil fields, if that is indeed there intention.
Which ultimately I dont believe it is.

I think the Oil barrons and military hardware profiteers figured Iraq would be a cake walk, in terms of convincing the public and running the military out of town.

The extreme ignorance of Americans ( about how they are viewed in the world )
they figured all iraqi's would throw roses petals and support the new democracy.
Very sorely mistaken.

either they didnt expect, or wernt AWARE of Irans current position on nuclear weapons.
Hell, I even remember reading a rport ages ago that said alqaeda members had HELP from Iran, to and fro saudi arabia.

People go on and on about the GREAT military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Afghanistan wasnt a victory. It was a turkey shoot.
Of course your going to beat mountain gurrilas with war planes dropping huge bombs.

of course your going to WALK over a 3rd world country with cruise missles and war planes... thast not a WAR..

after reading various PERSONAL accounts of the march to baghdad, you see that this GREAT military machine, is nothing more than rock and roll grunts, driving humvee's and tanks, shooting thereguns off at anything that moves while playing there music and scoffing meal packs.

There was no great military length.
Of course if u send a hundered thousand troops, armed to the teeth in humvee's screaming to one city they are going to anhilitate anyone...

They are brave men, and well trained..
But when 50 of you march into a town, that is full of semi trained soilders FORCED to be there holding old weapons and little strategic training...
its going t obe a victory no matter what.

The USA government got so caught up in its over night success that it never expected anyone to mess with them again..

IF, and I believe they have.. but IF Iran can figure out how to Disable any signals technology, and warplane technology INSIDE its flyzones... the US will have to resort to men on the ground.
And they US Army will not stand up to a full on one on one army fight.

If the US army lined up 100,000 men in ww2 against 100,000 men from the nazi's... the US would of lost..
its only because of superior numbers and armour the US won..

In this war with Iran, with the army mentally hurt, used, and losing confidence..
Iran will win.

I say it again, If Iran can disable the US air campaign, and disable cruise missle tracking systems within there fly zone, the US will lose a lot of men on the ground, a lot of innocent DRAFTED men, then resort to dropping the bomb.

Russia, China and many other important countries wont appreciate this, and will see how down and out the US is... they will hit, hit hard...
and down with the great empire of the USA



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   


how many chapters in the koran can with so much deatail describe what is happening in the world right now?



a lot of the hadith FYI, which has about the same reliability as the Bible.


According to whom? are you a religous scholar?






islam teaches that all religions and people submit to islam by force if neccessary.



you're wrong, to put it simply



No he is right, its called conversion by the sword, and it happens alot in MODERN day islam!
www.masada2000.org...

Do you also realise there is no converting from islam other than death?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join