America going to war with Iran, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 29-9-2006 @ 02:46 PM by etshrtslr
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear “Grover”:

It’s Maui Wowie I’ve been smoking. Premo stuff. Yup, you got me there. Naw…just kidding of course!

Unfortunately, when it comes to hydrogen bombs things aren’t the way the used to be. Back in the good ol’ days (ca. 15 years ago) we still needed a conventional atom bomb to trigger the fusion reaction of a hydrogen bomb. Therefore hydrogen bomb explosions always had to be HUGE! Well, sadly, things have changed. We can now activate the nuclear fusion of hydrogen through various other means, e. g. high energy lasers. Which means we can make hydrogen bombs as small or as large as we like. The Russians know this. The Chinese know this. Which is why neither of them will interfere militarily with whatever we do. We’ve got an entirely new set of weapons in our quiver.

Again, our war motives against Iran are only indirectly related to their strive towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Yes, our favorite ally in that region, also sometimes called our “air-craft carrier in the Mid-East” wants us to pummel Iran. But we’re only going to do this because Persia happens to also have something that we want — Texas Tea. You see, as you are certainly already aware, anything we do is morally and godly justified as long as it’s in America’s “strategic interest”.

And oh, by the way, good comment about the “habeas corpus”. Glad to see someone is still paying attention to important matters.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.


Wizard.....there are those that will think any talk of hydrogen bombs is diliberate disinformation.....however I have the feeling you know much more than you are letting on


reply posted on 29-9-2006 @ 04:15 PM by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Cinosamitna:

The inner cores of the WTC skyscrapers weren’t merely weakened, they were — literally — vaporized by the neutron volley coming from the nukes, along with the five and a half inch thick steel reinforced concrete floor slabs and pretty much everything else inside the buildings except for some light-weight objects such as paper documents. The “magic” is that high-energy neutrons are invisible to the naked eye (and CNN) and yet they can instantly superheat dense substances such as steel causing them to “evaporate” (sublimate, i.e. convert directly from their solid state to a gaseous form). Of course anything containing water will instantly explode into molecularly small pieces as well (this includes concrete and “biologicals” such as people) — leaving no fragments to be found.

Cinosamitna, I hope you’re right about the public not being fooled much longer. But, depressingly, I’m not so sure this will be the case. Academia and even renown experts in the fields of materials research and engineering have seem to forgotten — or never really understood — how basic materials behave.

E. g. take yourself a piece of concrete and drop it from a ten story building and see what happens. By the time it hits the ground it will have accelerated to top speed. See if it breaks into “talcum powder” — you instinctively already know it won’t. The gravitational energy is way too small to do that. And steel, especially mild steel typically does not break under gravitational stress — it bends. This can be observed at any junk yard. Or grab yourself a coat-hanger out of the closet and experiment with it to see what it takes to break it into little bitty pieces (let alone get it to “disappear into thin air” altogether). And no, it makes no difference, small scale or large. In principal these substances should behave the same — in a skyscraper or your backyard, in a research lab or in the field.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


reply posted on 29-9-2006 @ 05:39 PM by Cinosamitna
Dear Wizard,

The lunatics in the White House who are following out the orders of their ‘masters’ are planning genocide in the Middle East. One would assume that logically speaking, they would be already concerned over the latest USraeli incursion into Lebanon and the barrage of negative propaganda surrounding this massacre, yet they are still following through with their original agenda. They plan to remain as occupier’s of Afghanistan, Iraq as well and thus they will need many more troops. They also have over 15 thousand private troops or ‘mercenaries’ serving in the Middle East and not many of us are even aware that these men, who collect large pay checks are ex military and criminals (some of them) who still retain their military rank and any time can assume command by simply walking right back into the army!

Currently, the US troops in Iraq are facing up against the lesser of the Shia’s and Sunni forces - as these forces are now in a state of civil war. Should the US invade Iran, the Shia in Iran and Iraq will join together with their Sunni Muslim brethren in Iraq and Afghanistan and then attack the America forces in Iraq. Iran just acquired the latest high-tech Russian SAM technology which will prove a serious problem for the US forces should they attempt an air strike but I still see no other way other than by using Nukes. Of course these are of the type you are familiar with - not being the classical kind but ones which can "dig the Iranians out", so to speak. Tony Blair plans to step down next May and my sources have informed that he will never step down, unless knowing 100% that the he can do so providing the plan is still in order. They have something else cooking up their sleeves and these guys truly taker the cake for “evil”. They are planning some type of false flag operation also – I just have no idea yet. But they want the Triangular region (including Afghanistan, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Georgia, Iran etc) so they can control the oil via the pipeline and basically create the worst form of Monopoly and oil feudalism ever. Of course nothing is set in stone but the draft will not hold in countries like Canada or Europe - but in the USA, I'm afraid it’s VERY likely to occur and I can just imagine watching all the families leaving the States.

Russia and China also need the oil and they have made multi-billion dollar deals with the Iranians. Rest assured that if Iran is invaded, they would support them in stopping the USA and USrael. NATO is another joke, as they are not there for any peace, for they made secret deals with Israel to support them in any military operation.

In terms of protecting our wealth, many cannot afford to be buying Gold and Silver. But if we can even put aside $25-50 per month into it, it would be well. However, should you or anyone else have specific questions regarding this idea, please U2U me.

God Speed Wizard!
Cino


[edit on 29-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]


reply posted on 29-9-2006 @ 06:46 PM by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Cino:

My dear comrade (funny, very funny I know)… You’re absolutely right — the boys in the White House might very well be short a few bulbs of a full marquee!

But being that humans are naturally inclined to follow powerful, decisive leaders — regardless of their wisdom or morality — the taking of the Iran oil fields by U.S. forces will likely come to pass.

If history is any guide, it doesn’t normally take a lot of soldiers to occupy a country, and in this case we are only talking about a limited amount of territory anyways — the Iranian oilfields. E. g. the British Empire was able to the huge territory of India with a comparatively minute number of troops. Because if anyone even thought about “making trouble” they could be assured that London would send a big army to deal them. So sure, today in Iraq there is resistance, but in terms of casualties it’s well below any level which might influence our policies, present or future. And our decision makers might very well assume that any increase in rebellion to our forces can be offset by a “loosening” (applying a more ruthless set) of our rules of engagement.

Sure Russia and China have made deals with Iran, just like they made agreements with Iraq before it was invaded. If Iran attacks us first (which is what “officially” will happen), e.g. sinks one of our aircraft carriers — the oldest and rustiest one of course — then we have every right to “defend” ourselves now don’t we? And we will have every right to the “spoils of war” (them fields of tar). Throughout history the winner always has.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.


reply posted on 30-9-2006 @ 11:09 AM by grover
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Cino:

My dear comrade (funny, very funny I know)… You’re absolutely right — the boys in the White House might very well be short a few bulbs of a full marquee!

But being that humans are naturally inclined to follow powerful, decisive leaders — regardless of their wisdom or morality — the taking of the Iran oil fields by U.S. forces will likely come to pass.

If history is any guide, it doesn’t normally take a lot of soldiers to occupy a country, and in this case we are only talking about a limited amount of territory anyways — the Iranian oilfields. E. g. the British Empire was able to the huge territory of India with a comparatively minute number of troops. Because if anyone even thought about “making trouble” they could be assured that London would send a big army to deal them. So sure, today in Iraq there is resistance, but in terms of casualties it’s well below any level which might influence our policies, present or future. And our decision makers might very well assume that any increase in rebellion to our forces can be offset by a “loosening” (applying a more ruthless set) of our rules of engagement.

Sure Russia and China have made deals with Iran, just like they made agreements with Iraq before it was invaded. If Iran attacks us first (which is what “officially” will happen), e.g. sinks one of our aircraft carriers — the oldest and rustiest one of course — then we have every right to “defend” ourselves now don’t we? And we will have every right to the “spoils of war” (them fields of tar). Throughout history the winner always has.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



Tell the soldiers bleeding and dying in Iraq that it doesn't take a lot of soldiers to occupy it.


reply posted on 30-9-2006 @ 09:42 PM by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear deessell:

An interesting perspective. And quite possibly true — it may indeed would have been cheaper to “buy” the oil from Iraq rather than invade the country to take it by force. But this way we get to keep our money and we get the oil.

See, most of the money spent on defense goes to U.S. companies. And we Americans don’t mind going into debt to increase defense budgets, especially not now with the “war on terror” and all. And more importantly, the rest of the world thinks that’s o.k. also and continues to scoop up our treasury bills. But I seriously doubt that foreign nations would be willing to lend us money — and lend us they must since our savings rate is negative — directly to buy crude oil!

Also keep in mind that we are pumping a LOT MORE oil from those Iraqi fields than what the official numbers show. Still, if the war has cost 300 billion dollars so far, then that would buy 4.23 billion barrels of crude at $70/barrel (we in the U.S. consume ca. 7.5 billion barrels per year). Coincidentally, if I’m not mistaken I believe Iraq is theoretically able to produce an amount of 2.2 billion barrels annually. And we’ve been there for three years now haven’t we? So it’s safe to say fiscally on paper our country is coming out ahead in this situation and not about to leave. If you don’t believe me, then why are we digging in over there like Alabama ticks by building elaborate and expensive bunkers, barracks and beer halls for our troups?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


reply posted on 27-11-2006 @ 05:24 PM by DenyAllKnowledge
War against Iran? Pah. The U.S. and British might as well've stayed at home for all the "good" they've done in Afghanistan and Iraq, in fact, alot more people would still be alive today had the whole sordid affair not taken place.

Iran is a far larger country than Iraq or Afghanistan, it's virtually all mountains, and the people will fight hard for their homeland. All this talk of invasion and "pre-emptive" strikes sound like a load of hot air from a weakening superpower and a lackey eager to reassert some long dead imperial ambitions (we British are the trusty lackeys of course, after all, aren't we the ones that really ****ed up the Middle East after the WW2).

In regards to Iraq, T.E. Lawrence wrote in August 1920:

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows.... We are today not far from a disaster"

The sentiment is appropriate for the current situation. We are heading for disaster and an attack on Iran would make it a certainty.

As an Arab politician once said:

"Imagine that one carpet, worked on by scores of people, takes about ten years to complete. A people who spend years in manufacturing just a single carpet will wait many more years to achieve victory in war. Do not take lightly the patience and perserverence of Iranians..."

Persia has seen invaders come and go, ruled the largest Empire the world had ever seen, thrown into turmoil when invaded by the Macedonians, again rising to create the counterbalace Empire to Rome, invaded by Arabs and Mongols they still retain an Indo-European language and traditions as old as that of the Druids of Britain.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^