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.

 

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Megadeth
He simply does not think the same way you do or look at things the same way.
You can't assume that he does, because he is a madman with a destiny to fulfill.
He and his cohorts have put the world on its path and they will see it through.
What you see as too much and wrong he sees as necessary.
Your logic is not the same used by him.


Put his daughters in Iraq, then tell me how he thinks. What he thinks is not how this country is supposed to work. How he acts is not as a president, but as a dictator. A president listens to what the people want.

By the people, For the people.




posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Iran is a tricky situation right now. One one hand, you can say that you can see and see if the sanctions work. On the other hand, you can say that Iran is hellbent on "wiping Israel off the map," which is what Ahmadinejad said. Of course, that could be just empty threats. I don't know where you draw the line in making threats against enemies. I just think it is dangerous when a country is a theocratic state, especially if the group is radicalized, thinking destruction for religious purposes is alright.

I for do not have all the intel, so I don't know. It's a definite possibility that they are building nukes, and may be ignorant to think they are not. That being said, we should really go through alliance-building and diplomatic possibilities before we strike that would be good for the world.

I think the first tipping point that Iran is going to attack Israel is them giving the boot to UN inspectors. But who knows they may hide their "dirty work" where it doesn't matter if the inspectors are there.

I do think Cheney is ridiculous, because a unilateral attack by the US is not a smart move in the climate of this world today. We need to put the diplomatic thrust on overdrive in my opinion, because things could get ugly. I do think we would be able to get backing for a preemptive strike, if their is hard intel they are planning on attacking Israel.

Iraq was an interesting decision. I think as a country we may have been misled a little, but it might have been a very strategical move on the part of our government. Who knows?



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
Given the current state of congress, who *must* approve a war...


Not necessarily, the executive still has some leeway under the War Powers Act. If push comes to shove the SCOTUS may very well decide that particular law is unconstitutional anyway. Or it may stay out of it and let the issue remain unresolved in which case the executive definitely has the upper hand.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
this administration would be best to ride out the term they currently have in front of them and step down. anymore war mongering and there's no telling what could happen. either way, I'm convinced there will be a peaceful resolution internationally - with or without the current administration.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
I really, really hope that news report is biased. I don't see what good would come from a military conflict with Iran. Some how I also tend to think the people would not support it either.


Well Red, I (and I'm sure others) have been posting here the very same sentiments expressed in the article attributed to the secret source. Bush WILL have to deal with Iran and he WILL do so before he leaves office. All this "diplomatic measures" talk is foreplay. It's apparent that this is not going to happen and I don't think it was ever meant to. This administration cannot take a chance on someone being in the White House that will now follow the same clear agenda they have set forth.

The clock is ticking and I think it's obvious where we are headed.

Whether people will support the action or not is a different story. At this point there are some on both sides of the fence, however...given the right incentive...say another major attack that raises fear and paranoia I believe the people will follow ANY course of action that seems to support their safety whether that particular action involves the nation responsible for the attack or not. The shakiest of proof will be enough to endorse a terrible response on who we see as responsible.

So I've said it again and mark my words it is exactly how this will go down.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I see an American Revolution on the horizon if something drastic does hapen, we can only take so much untill we go absolutely ape-#.
The Government has NO idea how "WE THE PEOPLE" can change things.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Cheney still makes millions from Haliburton...which in itself is pretty illegal.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Whether people will support the action or not is a different story. At this point there are some on both sides of the fence, however...given the right incentive...say another major attack that raises fear and paranoia I believe the people will follow ANY course of action that seems to support their safety whether that particular action involves the nation responsible for the attack or not. The shakiest of proof will be enough to endorse a terrible response on who we see as responsible.

So I've said it again and mark my words it is exactly how this will go down.


I've been saying for 6 years already that within a ten year timeframe (4 years left), we will see a nuclear bomb detonated on American soil. It will most likely be a dirty bomb, but could be a "suitcase" nuke with a relatively low yield of anywhere from 1 to 10 kilotons. It will likely be in an area of minimal economic impact, but great loss of life, approximately 75,000 to 250,000 people will perish. The reason it won't be in a major metropolitan city is because that would hurt the economy, and the higher elite certainly don't want their wallets to suffer. It will probably be in some area that has a U.S. landmark. They will claim it was a terrorist action, and even show shady proof that it came from the middle east. However it will have been orchestrated by the higher elite in this country, and it will happen sometime before the next elections. It is unfolding before our eyes right now. Our government is claiming that Al-Qaeda has already infiltrated our borders and might have nukes here, so they are already setting the stage for an attack. Do you really think our military intelligence would let an Al-Qaeda network inside this country if it didn't want them to be here? Not a chance. War is coming folks, so be prepared.

Let's not forget our history. America has played countries in the middle east against each other for it's own good. We have taken sides on more than one occasion. You can certainly understand how the middle east would hate us, as they should. And if the U.S. needs to make it look like a terrorist attack, they will hire these terrorists to do it -- they've done it before, and they will again.

I have recently purchased some Potassium Iodide and I suggest you all do the same. You can get a 14 day supply for $10. FEMA has purchased on the average of 3 million packages a year. The Washington D.C. bureaucrats have stockpiled 750,000 packages for themselves. FEMA probably has somewhere around 20 million packages in their arsenal for the whole country. Now you tell me, do you wish to be fighting for your supply among the 400 million people in this country? I certainly don't.

[edit on 7/16/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

I've been saying for 6 years already that within a ten year timeframe (4 years left), we will see a nuclear bomb detonated on American soil. It will most likely be a dirty bomb. It will likely be in an area of minimal economic impact, but great loss of life, approximately 75,000 to 250,000 people will perish. The reason it won't be in a major metropolitan city is because that would hurt the economy, and the higher elite certainly don't want their wallets to suffer. It will probably be in some area that has a U.S. landmark. They will claim it was a terrorist action, and even show shady proof that it came from the middle east. However it will have been orchestrated by the higher elite in this country, and it will happen sometime before the next elections. It is unfolding before our eyes right now. Our government is claiming that Al-Qaeda has already infiltrated our borders and might have nukes here, so they are already setting the stage for an attack. Do you really think our military intelligence would let an Al-Qaeda network inside this country if it didn't want them to be here? Not a chance. War is coming folks, so be prepared.


To be honest that scares the # out of me, I was watching the news yesterday morning at they were talking about Nuclear Power Plants being a target of terrorism and I live within 10 miles of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant the biggest Nuclear Power plant in America, i already know i would be dead if something did happen.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Oh dear what a mess. I've always said it should have been a blue helmet job going into Iraq. Maybe if USA wants to fight Iran they should do it properly. get the evidence, hard evidence that noone can say it was a cover job etc and present it to the UN. Do some diplomatic arm twisting ie to the Russians support the fight in iran and we'll ignore Cheycna for example. Once the votes are obtained then send in UN troops !



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
Maybe if USA wants to fight Iran they should do it properly. get the evidence, hard evidence that noone can say it was a cover job etc and present it to the UN.


The problem is, the U.S. has all they need to do that. It is entirely too easy for the CIA to slip a couple groups into Iran (they're already there anyway) to plant the evidence. A well placed warhead that the Iranian government doesn't know about, or even taking a truckload of explosives and running them across the border into Iraq and whaddya know, there's evidence.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
they are in IRAQ to set up shop because it is going to be a good conveinient hub FOR ENERGY continuing into the future

they are war profiteer's and they are going to finish what they started and they'll be damned to go this far and step back

THERE GOAL: oil at 200 plus a bARRELL, they will make a killing

i'm not sure what they have planned as far as to accomplish this , syria has iran's back and so forth

this is going to be a blood bath for oil under the pretense of some kind of nuclear reactors and a false flag attack on a u.s carrier (probably done by isreal and blamed on iran, and then we go in) and this part may need to be done to get public from storming the capital in an uproar, but when gas prices go to 6-8 a gallon, there might not be enough camps to hold everyone back.

the stock market is in so much further disconnect from the economy than usual and the people most exposed to the comming correction will be some hedge fund managers a few banks and joe upper middle class this time cause joe middle class already will be taken care of with rising energy and mortgage payments. get ready for a two-tier society to the extreme. the elite just need to keep deregulating the rules of the stock market and by the way most of the big company's are MULTI national anyway thus they generate alot of there revenues from overseas.

the dollar is gonaa be falling further and the prices of goods in america is gonna be risin at the same time country's move away from buying oil in dollars.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Did anyone watch the CBS show Jericho? These senarios you all are putting forth seems to be very similar to that show. Now I wonder if this is the plan that is in the works why air a TV show that deals with the same plan? Is it to subliminally tell people what to expect or how to prepare or is someone at CBS trying to avert this plan by making it mainstream?



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
I have recently purchased some Potassium Iodide and I suggest you all do the same. You can get a 14 day supply for $10.


Both of us living in L.A., it appears we're on the same wavelength. I bought mine last year and have a supply at work and at home.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I think when Bush gets a firm committment from China they are not going to dump those 1 trillion and plus bonds, then he might back off. If they do we will be in a real tailspin. North korea was a gift to us from China.Its kind of like the old MAD policy. mutually assured self destruction, but without the nukes. I think ahmadajin will get yanked before all this is over. I think bush wants to drive these insurgents into Iran, and damage the facillities ..but make no mistake if he goes full throttle it wont take 3 months even to clean this mess up, divide the country in 3 and go home. what he should have done in the 1st place the twit.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Sys,
in your post you mentioned something about N Korea was a gift to the U.S. Could you explain what you mean by that?


[edit on 16-7-2007 by RedGolem]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

I've been saying for 6 years already that within a ten year timeframe (4 years left), we will see a nuclear bomb detonated on American soil.

Let's not forget our history. America has played countries in the middle east against each other for it's own good. We have taken sides on more than one occasion. You can certainly understand how the middle east would hate us, as they should. And if the U.S. needs to make it look like a terrorist attack, they will hire these terrorists to do it -- they've done it before, and they will again.

I have recently purchased some Potassium Iodide and I suggest you all do the same. You can get a 14 day supply for $10.

[edit on 7/16/2007 by pjslug]


About the potassium iodide, I don't think it's a bad idea, better to be safe than sorry. I guess what ever gives you peace of mind.

I think a nuclear or dirty bomb terrorist attack in the US is a possibility. I watched the last season of 24, which was interesting and over-the-top, but hey it's entertaining.

I know all about the petrodollar and the supposedly real reason for going into Iraq. But I feel thinking that was the only reason we went to war into Iraq, maybe some what short-sighted of the strategical elements. I think you are missing some of the angles of why they went in there in the first place.

I think we may have taken the battle right to the door step of radical Islam, Iran, so that they focus their attention and resources on getting involved there rather than terror in America, the UK or anywhere else.

I don't think you understand that radical Islam wants all of the control and money in their hands, because they are greedy. Why do you think Saudi Arabia stopped paying oil dividends to citizens as they did before. One thing is they are running out of oil. Ahmadinejad even might be saying they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, just to make oil more profitable.

All of the Middle East does not hate us, but they hate the fact that the US profit off of their oil. And they also hate the fact that we defend Israel, because they do have a rightful claim to that land, and the Islamics don't, like the Jewish. They want to destroy Israel because they hate Jews for interfering with making their prophesy of an Islamic nation on Israeli land come true.

They are extremist, not rationalists. They rule with exacting and harsh religious code, not with the love of the idea of personal freedom. Not all Muslims believe this is what they should do, some just have to suffer through the tyranny. I am not saying the U.S. doesn't have problems, but I personally could never live in a theocratic state that forces it's women to wear full body clothing, so they are not exposing any of their "devilish" good looks. It is ridiculous to even think things like that really matters.

That just shows how amazingly prejudice and subjective they are towards woman as something less than their male counterparts. The woman there don't have a choice. They just cope.

A couple question for you pjslug:

Do you think the reason that the Islamic countries, like Iran, in the Middle East may be in such a bad state, because they are quickly running out of oil?

How will they make money after it does?

I think you can take a look at how Dubai is building like crazy to diversify their money and attract a new type of business to it's country, because possibly they aren't short-sighted and know that their oil wealth will not last forever. I also think, that they are very smart for building a business hub there and making it more than land on the edge of the desert.

I too also think that Ahmadinejad might get the hook by the Imams before it gets too serious. I think they may not want their country being blown up. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens if nothing else. I really, if we can help it, that things may get better in the region before all out war in the Middle East erupts.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
I'd also like to point out that - the insurgents in Iraq are getting their weapons, ammo, food and supplies from somewhere.

.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. they're supplying them what they need to carry on their "missions!

I can say that pretty safely now.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
I think that action against Iran right now is a bad idea. On the other hand, I have to wonder if there is ever a time when such action might be justified and necessary. For example, is it justified if Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon? Immediately before they tighten the final screw? After they have finished it?


If they attack someone else.

I don't see how anyone can justify attacking someone just because they have nuclear weapons.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by zeeon
I'd also like to point out that - the insurgents in Iraq are getting their weapons, ammo, food and supplies from somewhere.

.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. they're supplying them what they need to carry on their "missions!

I can say that pretty safely now.


Please provide proof? That is a bold statement that requires more than one persons word. Or is it just an opinion? If so, do you have evidence you are basing that assertion on? I'm keying off the exclamation mark.

I've heard others with that opinion and I'm genuinely curious what they are basing that on???? Personally, so many predictions have been completely wrong, I'm withholding judgment for now.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join