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.

 

Time for regime change in Tehran?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Here is a short article of which our very own John Bolton says, "Negotiations with Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme have failed and the only long-term option is regime change". This open "declaration" from the man who once represented the US in foreign policy through the UN is obviously trying rally support for what's to come in Iran. John Bolton has openly admitted that other attempts are exhausted, and the only "workable" steps are to "isolate the Iranian people internationally, politically, and economically, but the regime change is the only real solution."
 



www.spacewar.com
Negotiations with Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme have failed and the only long-term option is regime change, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Monday.

"We have to recognise it: negotiations have failed. Time is not on our side. I am not sure this view is shared in London, Berlin or Paris. But that is a mistake," Bolton told Le Monde newspaper.

"The only response is to isolate (the Iranians) internationally as well as politically and economically. In the long term, in the I hope not very long term, the only real solution is regime change," he said.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If this doesn't ring a bell to anyone of what took place in Iraq, then I don't know what will. If you can't hear the "war drums" a drumming... then you really need to pull your head out of the sand.

We all know it's coming, but this statement, along with many ongoings surely point us in the direction of "Target Iran".

Related News Links:
kucinich.house.gov
www.globalresearch.ca
infowars.net
newsinfo.inquirer.net

[edit on 1/29/2007 by Infoholic]

[edit on 29/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Its taking Bolton a little while to understand that we needed a regime change here and why he was never given the job he was holding temporarily as permanent. He doesn't realize his buddies down at the ole Enterprise Institute should just remain a think tank and never ever should what they think about come into reality. This is why he is speaking to a French newspaper who will more then likely disregard him anyway.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Bolton, like Rice and just about everybody else in this administration have absolutely no crediblity when it comes to diplomacy so they should keep their mouths shut until they try it some time.

This is a prime example...just gonna make the Mullah's want to sit down and talk huh? Would make me want to stockpile as fast as I could. Then we can talk. This is what we get when we let ideologues gut the diplomatic corp... talking intelligently takes practice.... just ask Bush.... he doesn't practice.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
We are going to war with Iran, there are already 4 major battleships in the area.
I found some interesting links that talk about attacking Iran is a trap :
Here's the link: www.peakoilstore.com...

Plus another good suporting article : www.indiadaily.com...

Good topic info



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
...just gonna make the Mullah's want to sit down and talk huh? Would make me want to stockpile as fast as I could.


Exactly.

As far as the current administrations "credibility"? As was the point of posting this thread, it's been said before, and now it's being said again. We'll see the upcoming war with Iran.

The said they were going to oust Saddam, low and behold, they did. Now it's being spoken by Bolton, who used to represent the US... how much longer will it be before President Bush makes the exact same "declaration"?

I don't think he'll get the go ahead from Congress, so what will Bush pull to get the American populous to back the attack on Iran?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Bush promise to take care of Iran for the Israelis and he is going to do it, regardless of what the people in the US think or do about it.

He doesn't care a bit about our nation, he is the supreme leader and no even the congress is going to stop his mission.

He will not invaded Iran but he will launch an attack on their nuclear facilities and a few missiles that due to "malfunction" will fall in the populated areas killing thousands of people.

That will prompt Iran a retaliation as any sovereign nation will do to defend their land and their people.

Depending of the escalation then the decision will be made to Invade or not.

From where the troops will come I guess Bush will pull them out of his magic hat.
if the protest will not force him out of the white house first.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush promise to take care of Iran for the Israelis and he is going to do it, regardless of what the people in the US think or do about it.

He doesn't care a bit about our nation, he is the supreme leader and no even the congress is going to stop his mission.

He will not invaded Iran but he will launch an attack on their nuclear facilities and a few missiles that due to "malfunction" will fall in the populated areas killing thousands of people.


Bush has also promised to "uphold the Constitution" during his oath of office. Has he yet to do that? I'm not saying he won't back the Israelis, but he will find bogus means to bolster the general populous behind him. What's he going to do to get that support?

I agree he doesn't care a bit about our nation. But I disagree with you saying he is the supreme leader. He's not the least bit "supreme". Our government has 3 branches, of which have limited powers. Bush's powers stop at the point of where Congress is the only branch granted the power under the Constitution to declare war. Bush has made the comment many times in the past that he has inherent powers, but he's blowing smoke out of his rear.

Currently, Congress is forbidding Bush from taking any advance steps towards action in Iran. Where's he going to get the ok to take action against Iran?

I think Bush will have Israel do the initial attack and then he will find some way to drum up support with the general populous to get the ok to go in to support Israel. Considering we are sitting right smack dab between Israel and Iran, by the way.

His magic hat?
That's nice.


I hope he does get impeached. He's earned it.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

I think Bush will have Israel do the initial attack and then he will find some way to drum up support with the general populous to get the ok to go in to support Israel. Considering we are sitting right smack dab between Israel and Iran, by the way.

His magic hat?
That's nice.


I hope he does get impeached. He's earned it.


It shouldn't be too hard to drum up support for him as far as Iran is concerned. If you saw the documentary called "Jesus Camp" those people are about 25% of our countries population. They even give their kids Hebraic names and wave around the Israeli flag (These are the same people that gripe about Mexicans waving their flag) all he has to do is garner another 26% and he has support of the majority, which shouldn't be too hard if Americans start getting hurt in Iraq because Israel attacks without waiting for Americans to be clear of the area.
I really think it will be disasterous for Israel though. I think they believe they will be like Iraq was when they hit Osirak and its going to be a lot diiferent. If anyone needs to be placed under some sort of restraint in the Middle East it should be Israel if anything.

As far as impeachment goes...you got my vote on that. Absolutely.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
policy on attacking Iran and securing the mid-east for neo-con geo-political purposes has not changed. this has been in the planning for years. as far as securing the support of the populace, well, a bit of terrorism goes a long way. worked out perfectly for them on 9/11/01 (we've hit the trifecta!). as to what form it may come in, well, pick one not obvious. i'm thinking biochemical, but then again, these tried and true methods have been so productive for our masters over the years that it may not be necessary to be too creative. this would puzzle the masses. fear works well, and judging by the non-involvement of Americans in anything other than internet chatter (which will be eliminated after the next "event") it is almost certain to work again. this may sound pessimistic but, alas, we are profoundly lacking in historic perspective on this part of the planet.
one of the certainties of the upcoming war is based on non-involvement and unwillingness to sacrafice of the American people. fat and lazy. i am as responsible as anyone else. years inside the bottle hiding from just such contingencies makes me as deserving of dictatorship as anybody else who, through the addiction of consumership, has not payed attention or responded immediately to the threat that has been grinning at us for years. we've allowed this to happen, and now we will pay the price, unless you can fathom the idea of a major strike and sit down in this country, which might involve missing a meal or two, or a program choice.
don't worry though, Lindsay is in rehab.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join