posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:49 AM
Yes Siree Bob. It's going to take a war. It's going to take a war, because the people cannot contain it any longer. It's going to take the next
brave country to stand up and say that's enough. And it's going to take the combined powers of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela,
and more to do it.
Do what, you say? Do what even the incoming Democrats cannot do: stop this warmongering administration from:
1) Expanding the Middle East war into Iran and Syria
2) Allowing this administration to seize impunitive power from the American people
3) Allowing the NWO to continue to expand and challenge the world
I believe that most of the rest of world understands. I believe that most of the rest of the world still has faith in the American people. But I also
believe that most of the rest of the world is fed up with American government, and its insistence on meddling in foreign affairs to project its power
and seize vital resources. If the American military cannot be pursuaded to defend this country from domestic enemies, then maybe it is befitting that
it be destroyed by the might of an enraged world.
The situation with Iran is more than just a bad movie on a late night TV show. There is much more at stake. Not only for the American
military-industrial machine, but for China particularly. An American-controlled Iran is probably the last thing that China needs, and yet is the first
thing, now, in this administration's gun sights.
The beachead established in Iraq was a move to divide and conquer. Going into Iraq made absolute sense to those privy, while it was total lunacy to
the innocent bystander. The UN, while taking its usual time, would have eventually cranked the pressure up on Iraq to the breaking point on its own
without the need for military intervention.
But hey, Iraq as a beachead will serve its useful purpose. Not only did it put Iraqi oil under American control, but it allows unfettered access to
its surrounding countries, particularly from a conventional weapons standpoint. And what lies directly across Iraq's eastern border? About 90% of
Which Bush and his plump military-industrial machine are eying as does a lion an antelope. All under the same BS reason that he claimed Iraq: WMD's.
In this case, Iran's supposed intent to acquire the bomb. Maybe this time, the American people will demand the solid evidence first? And from more
than just our "trustworthy" intelligence and Israeli pressure.
Taking Iraq was just the crucial second step to American dominance in the Middle East. Because cruise missiles, by themselves, are just not enough.
But dividing and conquering can have its disadvantages, the primary being that it puts the enemy on more than one front. And the warmongers got lucky.
Had China, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria flexed their muscles jointly the minute Bush decided to attack Iraq, this situation could have turned out
completely differently. Had those countries used the UN as a legitimate international reason to intervene, they would have been arguably as correct as
Bush claimed he was in attacking. And once it was determined that all the WMD's in Iraq turned out to be more hearsay than truth, all the more
HAD those countries intervened, some might say that would constitute world war 3. But would it have? Faced against not only the insurgency on the
ground, but against heaps of incoming missiles as well as air support, I believe the combined powers of those countries would have been more than
enough to keep Bush out of Iraq. Even if Bush would have sent the entire US military. And all this in a conventional sense, of course, because if
anyone was stupid enough to use a nuke- well, we all know what would happen then.
When faced with the reality that conventionally the US couldn't stand a chance against a force like that- even with the help of hesitant allies-
there would be only one choice: retreat or break out the nukes.
So now the question is, would Bush have used nukes in a case like that? Was he so intent and sure that Iraq was going to blow up the world that he
would engage in global thermonuclear war to make his point and quell this wretched supposed threat from Iraq?
I think not. And from that position, I honestly believe that there really ARE others motives at play here. And not that it really takes that argument
to make the point. Manufactured and exagerrated evidence taylored to suit agenda is the central point upon which this case rests. And it is the
central point at which the world should have made its move.
The world may have been unhappy, but tolerating, of Bush going into Afghanistan, but remember that the world as a whole was staunchly opposed, for
many reasons, to the US attacking Iraq. Enough damage had been done and enough people had been killed in retribution for 9/11 with the obliteration of
It's going to take a war. Yes Siree Bob.