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.

 

Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 



Originally posted by LDragonFire


Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, the very minimum it proves is that those who say Iran is not interfering in Iraq are living with their heads stuck in the sand.


That was not the issue! But it is likely they are involved its the neighboring country that has been blown to hell involving a Illegal War!!

So it seems that you condone them interfering in Iraq, eh? Well, I don't, since I don't know how you can separate that from US casualties resulting from it.



Originally posted by LDragonFire

Originally posted by jsobecky
They have been brainwashed into believing that Iran is innocent of anything bad.


Ok first of all Im a dissenter I don't automatically believe Everything my government says....I have, as we all do Good Reason Not Too. What about you?

It does seem, however, that you are ready and eager to accept anything that Ahmadinejad says as the truth. It shows me where your sentiments are.


Originally posted by LDragonFire
So what about the fundamentalist christens groups that are sending money to Israel so they have money to build settlements on land that was forcibly taken from Palestinians Not to mention the millions if not billions of money and weapons that flow to Israel from the USA.....maybe thats why they are funding what we call terrorist groups.

Not only are you pro-Iran, it aslo sounds like you are anti-Israel.


Originally posted by LDragonFire
I believe Ron Paul might be one that can help with this problem, not make it worse. What do you think of him jsobecky?? any thoughts??

Well, I was willing to listen to him until recently I heard he appeared on the Alex Jones radio show. That made me lose a whole lot of respect for him.


Originally posted by LDragonFire
and you still say that Iran is suppling weapons and material to kill our troops even though you or anyone else right now can't prove it

The proof has been shown many times here. They funnel Chinese weapons and their own advanced IEDs to Iraq. They train the insurgency. They shell the Kurds. Etc., etc.

But you will not believe it, no matter what proof is given. That's why I say, living with heads stuck in the sand.:shk:




posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
if there is a war i really hope they don't pull off any more "terrorist attaks" to will the public to support the war

it could cause an economic calamity that would effect everyone's standard of living i.e something that they would really care about

sometimes i think the gov'ts of the world are doing a good job because they haven't blown us all up yet.

jsobecky i really don't remember agreeing with many of your perspectives but i love the quote from orwell it is so true and something too many take for granted.

btw the economic conditions (hyperinflation) in the united states over the next couple years will remind people just how good they really had it for so long.



[edit on 1-9-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Stellar, You are a professional board troll. Go outside sometime and get away from the internet.


Not getting paid so i'm not sure i am all that professional and i wish i did not have to spend so much time outside making a living.....


I think you might be the one who gets the "re-education" then. There's a REAL world out there that you are currently out of touch with. The sky is not blue in your world.


Thanks for the advice and i will do my best to 'mingle' with good righteous folk such as yourself.



I have stated my beliefs, based on fact, in several previous posts.


Derivived from partial truths and or lies from whole cloth.... What i have said and stated so far is not just 'based' on fact but what i believe all the information taken as a whole leads to. If you feel that sure about what your saying your free to stick around and object as loudly as you like.


I'm not going to re-state them for someone who just likes to argue for the sake of it. Go back and read.


I have read it and i don't like arguing at all.
As Dubya says " it would be far easier if this was a dictatorship" where i did not have to put up with the most basest of propaganda and lies...


I think it's odd that someone as "educated" and "all knowing" as you doesn't recognize his own behavior on these boards for what it is....malignant narcissim.


I have never heard anyone described as such so maybe you want to enlighten me as to how exactly i should be acting to live up to such a complex caricature?


You and only you know the truth and everyone else needs to be "re-educated". Laughable.


While my writing style might sometimes lead insecure people to presume that i think i know 'the truth' i will be the first to admit that i do not and that i am in my opinion quite ignorant of the volume of information that enables our existence. Is my belief that i am far less ignorant than you really the stuff you think a truly arrogant attitude is built on? I admit to the mistakes i believe or can see i have made and the moment i find that any of my accusers start doing the same i might start worrying about my own supposed arrogance.


Originally posted by Vanguard223
It's possible to find articles and opinions supporting both sides but Iran has been known to support terrorism in the past.


The United States of been convicted of state sponsored terrorism by the UNSC and compared to the US Iran does not even begin to appear on the atrocity measurement scale.


Are we to believe that they suddenly became nice guys, especially with the rhetoric coming out of their president's mouth lately?


Well compared to their accusers they ARE nice guys and if i must choose i would far far rather become the victim of the near non existent Iranian international terror network than with the very real and globally present terrorist force that is the US armed forces. Have Iran for instance ever bombed into oblivion half the capacity of another nation to produce desperately needed medicines?


Originally posted by Vanguard223
You don't have to love Bush to know that Iran is heading down the road to international sanctions and opening themselves up to possible military action.


You only need to study some history to know that that is likely to happen however baseless the accusations against Iran.


They are enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons while saying they only need nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes.


I am not even going to bother arguing the fact that Iran can't or wont have nuclear weapons soon as i don't believe it's any business of the US people who still have far more than enough to prevent Iran every using theirs. Pakistan, North Korea, Russia , India, Britain and the US itself all have far worse human rights records but since BBC/CNN is not clamouring for attacks on those countries i suppose we must believe what we are told...


At the same time, Amadinijad (sp?) has said Israel should be wiped off the map.


He did not say that and if the US continues it's current terrorism against Iraq it might in fact be wiped off the map.


You'd be in an uproar if Bush had said something like that.


I think the interventionist US national security state policy of regime change and mass murder speaks volumes as to who has both the ability and the will to carry out whatever threats they may be making. As far as his claims i also hope that the regime in Israel collapses and the the Israeli's finally get the leadership that could act on their wishes and bring the peace they have long been willing to make real concessions for.


Also, Iran is supplying terrorists in Iraq with weapons and working to further destabilize the country.


By far the biggest factor in the destabilization of Iraq is the presence of a foreign occupation force that is not strong enough to in fact policy the country and keep the peace. If the US wanted to secure Iraq it's border with Iran could easily be sealed thus preventing any smuggling which could pose a realistic threat to the success of the operation.


By the way, I'm not a Bush lover. I want the man gone.


Doesn't everyone worth mentioning in polite conversation?

Stellar

[edit on 1-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
I'd just like to point out that the intel we had said it was a "sure bet" that saddam had WMD's.


It never was, it was understood, and i will counter any sourced claims you make with three i am aware of.


Even the democrats voted to go to war for this..


No they did not! NO ONE voted to go to war and they simply voted to allow Bush to take whatever actions he thought necessary to enforce UN resolutions. The US government have not declared war on Iraq and this speaks volumes as to the illegal nature of this war; if American soldiers happen to be mistreated by the Iraqi resistance i don't think the Hague is going to be interested.


.not to mention George Tennet was head of CIA at the time...Clinton appointed head of CIA.


I know you think there is a connection there but i you might be surprised to find that closure inspect wont reveal any.... Tenet is a warmonger like the rest but even warmongers apparently have their limits and Tennet did not provide the information the US media has led you to believe.


I'm really getting tired of everyone saying "bush lied" about the wmd's, because there's a long list of names you have to add with his if you want to use that argument.


If you wish to make such a list i am sure i could agree with much of it.... Bush DID lie about the WOMD and while some might believe that the French and Brits 'tricked' the US into a invasion , or the Russians smuggled it out but since we all "KNOW" the Russians are no threat to anyone these days that can't be so, by providing false information i am quite sure Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the prince of darkness himself (Perle) were well aware that this was just the excuse they required and could get away with finding just a few Scuds filled with gas or something similar. The fact that they did not even find that might have come as a genuine surprise to them but since they can all retire to even influential corporate positions you must excuse my lack of sympathy....

Stellar



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanguard223
 


Vanguard223
You are absolutely right when you say that the belief that Saddam had WMD predated Bush Jr. This link will show you that it was as early as 1998 that Clinton made his statements regarding Iraq's WMD's.
theanchoressonline.com...

Anyone who still says "Bush lied" is living with their head in the sand.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a attack on iran now most americans dont even no were iraq is or even how t say it right but you go in invade and try to play the big cop well it failed and now your going onto iran war is very likely and all you people are doing is sitting there just like iraq



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
this is my first post to this site, so here goes,
I beleave that we will stay in the middle east for the rest of this time. it is only going to get worse and Jesus will return befor we will see rest in theat part of the world



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
This is a pretty big deal!! A presidential candidate actually coming out and saying what we all know is going to happen.

Do you think there will be a Tonkin Incident say 'sinking' or 'attacking' of the aircraft carriers. Or will it just be out of the blue with WMDS Terrorisim etc used as an excuse afterwards? The U.S clearly can't go to the U.N with this can they?


Well isn't the Tonkin incident prior to vietnam historically questionable? It's been suggested that it was just a fabricated excuse. Especially because of the chaotic situation that followed in which the ships crew were basically not sure what had occurred, but it eventually got blown up into being a full blown attack when the captain really wasn't going on good information. But simply "information from the crew".

-ChriS



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I think eventually there will be a nuclear exchange but i don't think Iran has the capability to hold american forces hostage with strategically placed nukes. As long as we have nuclear subs the entire M.A.D. issue will be as applicable as it ever was. As far as I know, Iran doesn't actually have long range nuclear capability, but only short-medium. Which means the only nuclear tactic they could ever use would be to threaten either other countries in the region or american forces nearby. But even then, if american forces are in Iran, would Iran actually nuke their own country to take them out? The only logical thing to do would be to threaten naval operations but even then a nuclear weapon is kind of overkill, not to mention suicidal.
It would be like Tonkin with nukes.

-ChriS

[edit on 2-9-2007 by BlasteR]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Aaaah isn,t it difficult to explain preemptive strike to the public. It was dificult back in medieval europe aswell, many kings lost wars because they didnt succeed in convincing the public. I think the danger point is the minute iran has about 1 kilo of plutonium which they can then easily be hidden in a thick lead box somewhere never to be found even by satelite.
From that point on it will mean they can start a nuclear dirty bomb blackmail program. You dont have to wait for them to develope a nuclear weapon, because the dirty bombs are just as affective and Iran should have them ready for christmass this year. It just my opinion, but I think they could use them to threaten saudi arabia and isreal first, and london would be their next ambition once thats settled. The Iranian pres. is unpredictable
and very menacing with some of the statements he made the past two years. They know there will be retailiation, but hey, he dont care because his regime is suicidal and very anxious to join allah a soon as possible anyways. North corea backed off because china pressured them to do so. Why, because japan was going to nuclear arm itself, and it wasn,t in chinas interest to have japan with 500 one thousand megaton nuclear tripple RRR bombs aimed at them. It surprises me to fianlly see france making good sense, I cant understand why my country germany is remaining so low key on this issue, I guess october fests last all year round now these days overthere. A terrorist event of some sort should wake them up. I agree with the idea that some sort of warning and message should be sent to iran like the idea mentioned earlier about taking out thier military naval capabilities. That should do the trick but Im not so sure it will work. Iran knows it can last a long time in its many mountainous valleys, I think america needs to quickly develope a new type of special bomb that works in similar way like dry ice does, dry ice works its way down into the ground and not up. That way you can smoke the rats out of thier holes. Besides they should be developed anyways to be sure the himalayan mountainous valleys are well taken care of in the event of a future war with china. Nuclear weapons just dont quit do the trick quit yet. Well to conclude, even though Im a democrat, however I agree with bush that time is running out quickly, and a good solution would be to get some help from russia and germany to put some pressure on Iran. The clock is ticking and simple citizens dont understand whats at stake. I used to work for the british army of the rhine in germany 30 years ago and understand well the question of preemptive strike. Hopefully it doesnt come to war with Iran, but I think a nutcase Iranian pres will never back off.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Iran is backing Hezbollah.


In which ways and how is that somehow worse than all the murderous regimes the US backed with weapons that were used to SUPPRESS freedom instead of fighting for it as Hezbollah is doing


Iran is supplying arms and technical support to the insurgency in Iraq.


How can they do this when the US could close the border if they wanted to? They US may be allowing Iran to help the Iraq insurgency but as far as the pronouncements from US commanders on the ground that is not happening on any scale that indicates the involvement of the Iranian state.


We have already caught Iranian advisors and captured Iranian equipment inside of Iraq.


Where were Iranian advisers captured? Iranian equipment?


I'm not saying we should invade Iran...that's the last thing I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the U.S. needs to send a clear message to Iran to let them know that we won't tolerate them killing our troops by proxy.


Well they do not seem to be and the message to Iran is CRYSTAL clear; we will attack you as soon as we can get away with it irrespective of your actions.


A nice air strike on their naval assets should do the trick.


That did not work the last time...


Let them know beforehand that if we capture another Iranian or find another Iranian made rocket in insurgent hands, we're going to sink their entire navy....every ship.


Next time Israel kills Palestinian women and kids with 'made in the USA equipment' i suggest the world unites and attempts to sink the US navy. Do you want to live in a world were those who have the most power always use it in the most self interested ways possible? Are you that sure that the US will always have the power that it wields with such abandon now?


Then do it if we catch them aiding the insurgency again. Iran is already killing American soldiers and that shouldn't go unpunished.


EVIDENCE, please...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by widukindHH15gran
Aaaah isn,t it difficult to explain preemptive strike to the public. It was dificult back in medieval europe aswell, many kings lost wars because they didnt succeed in convincing the public.


And many just lost wars because they took on enemies they never should have...


I think the danger point is the minute iran has about 1 kilo of plutonium which they can then easily be hidden in a thick lead box somewhere never to be found even by satelite.
From that point on it will mean they can start a nuclear dirty bomb blackmail program.


Blackmail the blackmailers and mass murderers that is the US and Israeli governments? Do you think the Israeli or American governments are going to be 'scared' into 'inaction' by this or do you think they will happily encourage it hoping that the Iranians would give them the excuse to attack?


You dont have to wait for them to develope a nuclear weapon, because the dirty bombs are just as affective and Iran should have them ready for christmass this year.


How is a dirty weapon just as effective a ICBM or many hundreds of nuclear weapons that can be used in retaliation? How can you threaten the gorilla with the flyswatter?


It just my opinion, but I think they could use them to threaten saudi arabia and isreal first, and london would be their next ambition once thats settled.


Dirty bombs that have to be carried there? How could the Iranian government blackmail anyone without having the recourse to do overwhelming terror and violence? Do you not understand that the weak use terrorism to counter the terrorism of the strong knowing that they will suffer horribly disproportionate casualties?


The Iranian pres. is unpredictabland very menacing with some of the statements he made the past two years.


They are not very menacing when correctly translated and not nearly as menacing as the stated US policy of regime range...


They know there will be retailiation, but hey, he dont care because his regime is suicidal and very anxious to join allah a soon as possible anyways.


Are you older than fifteen ?


North corea backed off because china pressured them to do so.


North Korea backed off because they are dependent on Chinese and South Korea aid for their very survival and could not gain more concessions than they did when the Chinese government decided to withdraw support for their current course of action.


Why, because japan was going to nuclear arm itself, and it wasn,t in chinas interest to have japan with 500 one thousand megaton nuclear tripple RRR bombs aimed at them.


One thousand megaton? It's widely admitted that Japan could deploy dozens of nuclear weapons , and even ICBMs within not many more years, within a few years but i doubt Russia would allow it or the US would support such moves. As to '500 thousands megaton nuclear triple RRR bombs' that's not going to happen any decade soon.


It surprises me to fianlly see france making good sense, I cant understand why my country germany is remaining so low key on this issue, I guess october fests last all year round now these days overthere. A terrorist event of some sort should wake them up. I agree with the idea that some sort of warning and message should be sent to iran like the idea mentioned earlier about taking out thier military naval capabilities.


If you don't understand why German politicians are remaining 'low key' on the issue maybe you should study some history and consider the political implications of firing the first shots in a world war. There wont be 'terrorist' events against German unless they are staged by the CIA/Mossad and the like so 'good luck' hoping and praying for violence against your own country.


That should do the trick but Im not so sure it will work.


And these type of statements wont help people to believe better things of the youth of Germany...


Iran knows it can last a long time in its many mountainous valleys, I think america needs to quickly develope a new type of special bomb that works in similar way like dry ice does, dry ice works its way down into the ground and not up.


Hahahahaha. They can and will flatten Iran in due course and the Iranians are perfectly well aware that the US administration do not care about the few thousand /tens of thousands of American lives that will be lost in the process. They know they can not 'win' and that it would spell the end of their control over Iranian society; they will not be the one's who invite such disaster upon themselves.


All y you can smoke the rats out of thier holes. Besides they should be developed anyways to be sure the himalayan mountainous valleys are well taken care of in the event of a future war with china.


Rats? A war against China would leave the US even more open to aggressive actions by Russia so that wont in my opinion happen any time soon.


Nuclear weapons just dont quit do the trick quit yet. Well to conclude, even though Im a democrat, however I agree with bush that time is running out quickly, and a good solution would be to get some help from russia and germany to put some pressure on Iran.


Russia is allied with Syria and Iran and open and aggressive actions against any of these nations will invite a terrible retribution against the American public who should be reigning in the inhuman impulses of the leaders that have stolen power in the US.


The clock is ticking and simple citizens dont understand whats at stake.


I don't think you should speak of 'simple' people when your perceptions are this twisted.


I used to work for the british army of the rhine in germany 30 years ago and understand well the question of preemptive strike.


I wonder if you do but clearly your too old for me to let you get away with the type of nonsense you have been typing so far.


Hopefully it doesnt come to war with Iran, but I think a nutcase Iranian pres will never back off.


Nutcase? It always bothers me when grandpa's such as yourself want to start wars you will expect others to fight for you.

Stellar

[edit on 2-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Why don't the U.N just get rid of the U.S' nuclear weapons, would save a helluva lot more lives than taking Irans if they in fact do have any.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Good job Stellar, you certainly know your stuff, I would hate to get in an argument with you!



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
So now it is not like Ron Paul is the only one saying this, it is also Bush,
and the former CIA operative. Well guess what America, you guys are headed
to a new age of war, and a new age of terrorists. Iraq was not even as big
as Iran is, and once you guys target them I think some sort of Shieks will
call for a jihad.
They will start protesting because USA has only attacked Islamic countries.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and pretty soon Iran. Muslims from all over the world will
not take this lightly. This will spiral out into a religion war.
But that is just my prediction, don't hold your breath!

America wants a religion war! America? The people or the government?
[edit] As far as I know Iran is a peaceful country. They have never attacked other countries but many attacked them. I understand the Iranians want the nuclear weapon, they want to be able to protect themselves. Iranians are very very bright, if I were Bush, I wouldn't attack them, at any price.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by jeanne75018]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh

Originally posted by manzoor
the blaiming game has already started bush saying iran backing terrorists etc as much as i dont want war i no it will happen damn bush!


Yes, "damn bush!" Nevermind that Iran is working on Nuclear weapons and even France, [sarcasm]One of our staunchest allies[/sarcasm], said military action is needed if Iran doesn't knock it off.

yes, damn bush.


Well, France are now in Bush's back pocket thanks to a slightly dubious election result and a pro-US French president installed. Unfortunately, whatever comes out of France these days can't really be trusted any more...IMHO.

J.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Well if Bush attacks before he leaves office, then the next president is going
to be left fighting this war. Yes, USA wants to be in and out, but Iran is not very dumb. Iran knows US has soldiers in Iraq, and that is where they will probably
hit them very hard. So basically Iraq has a good chance of being a big grave
site for both sides.


I don't think so really. Let's not confuse 'insurgency' and 'military' here. We all saw what happened to the Iraq army - not once, but twice. And the Iraqi army was better trained and organised in many ways than the Iranians. No, I have to dissagree with you on that one - I think the Iranian army would get flattened in a very short span of time - give 'em a week or two at most. What the US needs to seriously consider though is what happens AFTER they take Iran. You only have to look at Iraq today to forsee the dire possiblities...

J.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pfeil




Personally, I think the only reason we stayed out of Iran is because the limited number of voluntary soilders the US could deploy. If the US wants to go into Iran more soldiers will be needed. So I would say to expect some kind of "terror attack" in Iraq, something that could be blamed on the Iranians. Something that would turn opinion of Iran even further into the negative. Something that may cause mass volunteering of people into the military. I truley believe if the US went to war with Iran the draft would be reinstated. Maybe this is the reason for the recent troop deployment to Washington D.C. and other odd troop movements in the US....to quell any riots.

[edit on 29/8/07 by Pfeil]


I agree with you - if the US go into Iran (or probably before) I think you're gonna see the draft re-instated in the US. I can't see any other way they could pull it off. I can't however, see many European countries joining in really - France and the UK are not really trusted politically by most of Europe any more...they are in far too deep with Bush now... It's all a big stupid mess though.

J.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by LDragonFire


Funny how we did nothing about a nuclear North Korea....hmmm maybe it is about the oil!!!


We did somthing, korea is a success, we are "doing something" the diplomatic way. Iran continues to defy the international community. France, who is notoriously weak on such stances said, that they would be willing to chip in in the form of military action if it meant stopping a nuclear capable Iran. Its not just the US who is noticeably worried.
The difference between North Korea and Iran is, Iran is actually threatening to wipe isreal off the map. Korea never made such threats.


France 'were' notoriously sensible until the election of Sarkozy
Now...well...

J.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


And where was I America bashing? By pointing out that no government is innocent? A fact; and, that ours is no different? Is that what you are objecting to? If so jsobecky, follow your own advice and pull YOUR own head out of the sand.

Nuclear, weapons or power are not why we are fuming and fussing about Iran. That is just the front... the hard right has had a war-on for Iran ever since the hostage crisis in 1979, almost 30 years ago.

The fact is even if Iran is trying for weapons... according to the IAEA they are a minimum of 5 years away, and I would trust them over the bush administration in these matters any day.

The fact is the bush administration has no credibility anymore. They shot their load over Iraq and WMD and were either totally wrong or lying through their teeth. And, there is ample evidence both ways. The whole Niger yellow cake episode proves that. They knew those documents were false well before bush minor's infamous State of the Union Address where he cited them. He was told the documents weren't credible and was warned by the CIA not to use them; and, he went ahead anyway and claimed a nuclear threat. If that is not lying then I do not know what is.

The fact is you do not attack or invade a country unprovoked based on a supposition.... If you do so that makes you the aggressor. And, it doesn't matter one iota whether Clinton or anyone else thought that Iraq had WMD or not. Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq just because he thought they had them. bush minor did. A HUGE difference.

The fact is Iran is not the only country meddling in Iraq. Our so called allies, Turkey and more importantly, Saudi Arabia meddle as well. And there is no telling me that Saudi Arabia doesn't arm their Sunni partisans as well, just like Iran does its Shiia partisans. Both end up killing Americans, but Saudi Arabia is our "ally".

The fact is that since they live next to Iraq, all those countries; Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and turkey would be amiss if they did not try and influence the chaos of Iraq their way. I have said it before, if Canada for example was invaded and occupied, we would be meddling and trying to influence the events there as well. its a matter of real politik, not the pap you sell the populous for votes and support.

The fact is we should be far more worried about Pakistan, with its already existing nuclear weapons falling into extremist hands than an Iran that is a bare minimum of 5 years away from having them.

The fact is these are the facts. Now pray tell me how is that bashing America? That argument is so stale its pathetic.



[edit on 3-9-2007 by grover]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join