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.

 

Former German Foreign Minister Fischer: US, Israel will attack Iran

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Bob "The Wrench" Fantone

Cute, but:


Unconfirmed Sources political satire and news story parodies as represented above are written as satire or parody. They are, of course, fictitious.

Here's the current numbers from intrade, fwiw:



USA and/or Israel to execute an overt Air Strike against Iran by 30 Jun 2008
Bid:2.5 Ask:6.0 Last:3.1 Vol:3049 Chge:0

USA and/or Israel to execute an overt Air Strike against Iran by 30 Sep 2008
Bid:15.0 Ask:24.5 Last:22.4 Vol:2400 Chge:+2.4

USA and/or Israel to execute an overt Air Strike against Iran by 31 Dec 2008
Bid:20.1 Ask:26.0 Last:25.5 Vol:2244 Chge:0




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Thanks for the heads-up IML on my Vegas post--I'd done a quick google because St. Udio's post struck a chord and found that site in the top 10, but should have looked at it more carefully. Still, I'd like to know the Vegas odds on an attack...



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by whiteraven
 


so again someones using the Wipeout the zionest regieme to destroying Israel
how eligant.

also you say that Iran should be using alternitive energy yet.
in the UK the goverment is urged to build new nuclear power plants and the US is dealing with India and arab countries on nuclear power plants.

talk about hypcocarsy and double standerds at its best.

and no the US wouldnt be doing the world a faver attacking Irans nuclear power plant.
there is no proof Iran is building Nukes or has the desire for nukes, just the asumptions of some fat cat lobbying for another conflict.


"The Islamic Republic News Agency reported Saturday Ahmadinejad saying, "As everybody knows, the Zionist regime was created to establish dominion of arrogant states over the region and to enable the enemy to penetrate the heart Muslim land."

Saying the Israel regime was inherently a "threat," and was "on the verge of disappearing" Source for quote:www.jpost.com...

I believe this is a threat against Israel. How should Israel respond?

Furthermore, I am against any new Nuclear Plant coming on line anywhere in this world. I support complete disarming of all Nuclear weapons, including Israel.

I have read reports that many in Iran hold to Western ideas and I do support this. Women should be able to be well educated, able to vote, able to lead a household and live without the threat of a man trying to tell them what to do, what to wear, how to act etc. If women want to wear a mini skirt...more power to them. I support Iran if they move toward these ideas. I am against oppression.

A person should be free and unhindered in the pursuit of their choice in religion. No government, religious body, organization of any sort should bring oppression upon those who chose a different lifestyle or religion.

Iran should move toward alternate energy sources, not nuclear sources of energy. This would be a sensible move. NO NUKES!

I have read of the oppression of the Palestinian. I see this as an important issue. I believe you see this as an important issue as well but nuclear energy will not help this cause at all. Strapping a bomb on some poor fellow does not help the cause of the Palestinian either.

You may be closer to this issue (the Palestine issue/Iran Issue) and I welcome your comments.










[edit on 1-6-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
If I may engage in an analysis of the excerpted address made by what the international community has been led to accept as the de facto 'primary' elected representative of the voice of the citizens of the United States of America (a constitutional republic founded on, amongst other key points, the principle of religious freedom and absolute separation of Church and State):



The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.


In this statement, Mr. Bush commits to the Israeli people that our nation's commitment extend beyond the written treaty and agreements of diplomatic nature. The meaning of this is clear. Treaties between nations represent a presumptive acceptance by the citizens of each nation member.

In this statement he proclaims that there is a commitment on behalf of the US that supersedes the 'agreement between nations'. Of course, the terms of such an agreement are not specified, but remain as a mental 'image' invoked from the speech.



It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul.


Mr. Bush completes the image with a reference to "bonds of the Book [sic]" and obvious allusion to commonly accepted 'holy' scriptures. Mr. Bush is surely aware of the fact that not all of his 'constituents' hail from judaeo-christian backgrounds, yet he cites this as the 'bond' between Israel and the US. With this statement he has inexorably linked religion and the state.




I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem.


Mr. Bush shares with his audience that he has performed those 'traditional' activities that they (presumably) have, thus drawing them in to the 'I'm one of you' mind frame, if only for political speaking purposes.



And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice.


Continuing his effort to evoke 'common memories' in his audience he cites a visit to the site of an ancient battle, one remembered commonly with pride and cultural importance to the Hebrew people. Speaking in laudatory terms, identifies the spiritual image as "inspiring."



At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.


The US president, takes up the cry of the "Israeli" soldier "Masada shall never fall again." on behalf of the United States of America. This is a direct commitment to enjoin Israel in defense of Masada. (However, the allusion would be clearly he meant to imply 'In defense of Israel.' - whether that includes enjoining aggression by Israel is for any cynic implicit here as well.)




As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles -- shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites.


Bush's alliance, he commits, will only be influenced by "shared" aspects recognized between them - decrying the voice of the people as 'popularity polls' and mocking an existent 'international elite' who's opinion he hears regularly enough to regard as 'shifting'.




The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time.


Bush recognizes a single "defining" challenge. Terrorism and extremism, two typically political subjects which describe human activities with bias. The bias is of course embedded in the words of the morally superior struggling against the politically inferior.



This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil.


These words are surely guaranteed to have emotionally personal significance to the audience, simply by the construct and perspective from which they are evoked in the speech. And that emotional position has been validated with the reference to "good and evil."



The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers.


President Bush has now begun to close the logic loop. He speaks of prideful beginnings and common morality, he refers to prayer and morality, he references good and evil, then he states "The killers claim the mantle of Islam" interesting segue which clearly focuses the notion of evil terrorist extremist to Islam. Also, history proves him wrong in that many who pray to the God of Abraham have done the things to which he is referring; but he fails to mention that whom to one prays to is no indication of whether one is an evil terroristic extremist (presumptively that is a politically expedient omission.)



In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power.


Mr. Bush recites an axiomatic paraphrase. All political action is executed in pursuit of power. I am absolutely certain that he adheres to this principle.



They accept no God before themselves.


I suppose this is an insult. I am certain this wouldn't offend some people.



And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.


I suppose identifying the United States and Israel as 'ardent defenders of liberty' is an appropriate political turn of phrase.



America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary.


America stands with Israel - who are intending to break up terrorist networks and denying extremist sanctuary. So this was THEIR idea? To go to other countries and tell them not to harbor those we identify as opposing Israel (which we refer to as terroristic extremist.)



America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.


America stands with Israel - who oppose Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. OK, that's a straightforward enough.



Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations.


I can only assume that the assertion regarding Iran as the world's leading sponsor of terror is a 'common' Israeli sentiment. Mr. Bush would not have wanted to evoke a negative within all these assertions.



For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.


I suppose this can only mean that once Israel or the United States proclaim Iran HAS such a weapon is the moment war will be declared.



Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope.


It seems there is, in Mr. Bush's perception, a vision of 'justice and tolerance' that is shared between the US and Israel. Frightening when you consider each governments' recent examples of 'tolerance' and 'justice'.



These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God.


As could be expected, he restores the speech to a lofty level by acclaiming what he refers to as self-evident rights being 'gifted' from God.




[edit on 1-6-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Every month we hear all about an immediate attack coming against Iran, and yet it never happens.

Boy who cried Wolf ring a bell people?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 
Thank you for your effort on the above post. It pointed out to me some ideas that I have yet to explore fully.


I see that Bush is trying to tie the state to religion. I wonder who wrote his speech?

By bringing the "Book" ( A Pat Robertson phrase) into this gathering he has misstook the viewpoint of many who reside in Israel. There are many in Israel who do not place all of their values in the Book yet he does leverage those who draw upon the "Book" to justify their actions.

I do not believe for a minute that this is true, that is that Bush is following a doctrine laid out by the "book". It is self deception. After all those who live by the sword die by the sword. This was an early warning to the church which it seems was ignored by many Popes and church leaders.

I am reminded of this:
"These people draw near to me with their mouth, And honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."Matthew 15:8,9

War is a doctrine refused by Christ. It was accepted in the OT but never in the NT.

Of course this brings me to question what needs to be done with Iran's nuclear plans.

Is bombing their nuclear structure a statement of war or peace?

Is destroying a sword a statement of war or peace?







[edit on 1-6-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
"The Islamic Republic News Agency reported Saturday Ahmadinejad saying, "As everybody knows, the Zionist regime was created to establish dominion of arrogant states over the region and to enable the enemy to penetrate the heart Muslim land."

Saying the Israel regime was inherently a "threat," and was "on the verge of disappearing" Source for quote:www.jpost.com...

I believe this is a threat against Israel. How should Israel respond?


and? Israel call Iran a threat along with the US and daily call for sanctions and actions to taken againt the Country. what should Iran do about this threat?

i will give you this , both countries are as bad as each other as both countries see each other as a threat even so they have had historical ties where persions have helped in saving jewish lives before the whole middle east fiasco. and even have the largest jewish population in the middle east (2nd from Israel)


Originally posted by whiteraven
Furthermore, I am against any new Nuclear Plant coming on line anywhere in this world. I support complete disarming of all Nuclear weapons, including Israel.


i am all for nuclear power, it generates more power, and less harmfull then creating large fields of winfarms and so which take up space and has a larger impact on the enviroment.

on the weapons part i agree with you.



Originally posted by whiteraven
I have read reports that many in Iran hold to Western ideas and I do support this. Women should be able to be well educated, able to vote, able to lead a household and live without the threat of a man trying to tell them what to do, what to wear, how to act etc. If women want to wear a mini skirt...more power to them. I support Iran if they move toward these ideas. I am against oppression.


compared to other countries aka their arab counter parts they have more freedom, women can vote and so on apart from the clothing and other laws which come under sharia law. its their country and they brought it in them selves when they trew out the US puppets and installed a islamic state.



Originally posted by whiteraven
A person should be free and unhindered in the pursuit of their choice in religion. No government, religious body, organization of any sort should bring oppression upon those who chose a different lifestyle or religion.


wont argue there
im prefer a Circular goverment my self


Originally posted by whiteraven
Iran should move toward alternate energy sources, not nuclear sources of energy. This would be a sensible move. NO NUKES!


who said Iran is building Nukes, if they want to pursue nuclear energy, good for them. they can pre-long their natural resources and with nuclera generate more power.



Originally posted by whiteraven
I have read of the oppression of the Palestinian. I see this as an important issue. I believe you see this as an important issue as well but nuclear energy will not help this cause at all. Strapping a bomb on some poor fellow does not help the cause of the Palestinian either.

You may be closer to this issue (the Palestine issue/Iran Issue) and I welcome your comments.



well Iran having nuclear power doesnt really bennifit the palestinians unless somehow the Iranians are going to transfer power to them, and doing so bennifiting the palestinians.
i wont go into the palestinian issue as it has nothing to do with the subject or iranian laws and so on as i dont see how its relivent to Iran having nuclear energy.





[edit on 1-6-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 

Thank you for you reply as I am developing my ideas toward this world issue.

I tie the Palestinian issue with Iran as Iran supports some of the radical groups in Palestine.

All in all the common man is simply a pawn in the information wars. It is proving very difficult to sort out fact and fiction.

Peace
WR



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul


Originally posted by whiteraven
Iran should move toward alternate energy sources, not nuclear sources of energy. This would be a sensible move. NO NUKES!


who said Iran is building Nukes, if they want to pursue nuclear energy, good for them. they can pre-long their natural resources and with nuclera generate more power.






[edit on 1-6-2008 by bodrul]


The U.N. just busted them again!!! Brodrul you know that they keep expanding work and their weapons type uranium centrifuges at the Natanz facility when there is no need for it after the agreement with Russia to deliver fuel for them that they have lived up too, Even the U.S. said that we would supply them if they stop the shady operations.

www.spacewar.com...

India buys nuclear fuel from Russia, You don't see them complaining do you? Why, Because if they have a fall out with Russia they can get it from us because they let the IAEA inspectors do their jobs and do not try to hide stuff from them.

Next thing is you will say is that Iran needs to have nukes to protect themselves from the U.S. or Israel. Let me ask you this. Have we yet? NO!! If we haven't yet what on earth thinks makes you think they will be safe when they get some even though that we can set fire to the whole country in fifteen minutes? Having them makes our response one that will demand our use of our nuclear weapons.

Iran is guilty and they will pay for their mistake. Bush and Israel along with some western nations will never let them get a bomb. If they sneak in a test then we will attack immediately.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
reply to post by bodrul
 

Thank you for you reply as I am developing my ideas toward this world issue.

I tie the Palestinian issue with Iran as Iran supports some of the radical groups in Palestine.

All in all the common man is simply a pawn in the information wars. It is proving very difficult to sort out fact and fiction.

Peace
WR


bidrul, whiteraven,

Pardon the interruption, but you point out a very pertinent aspect to consider in your deliberations regarding the affairs which you refer to as the "information wars".

We are all very vulnerable to lack of unbiased sources. It brings to light an interesting and significant factor in our research that is much addressed cursorily, but hardly ever in a comprehensive way - a way useful to the entire 'community' we have adopted to participate in. I am referring to what may be a 'new' practice amongst us all. We must begin to carefully and consistently catalog our sources and the trends of their reporting style and content. Names of reporters, editors, policy positions they embrace, etc. I say this because together we can weed out what is and isn't an example of propaganda ..., and for people like us who came here to participate - who I believe were not motivated by aggressive ideological angst, propaganda is the only noteworthy enemy.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
reply to post by bodrul
 

Thank you for you reply as I am developing my ideas toward this world issue.

I tie the Palestinian issue with Iran as Iran supports some of the radical groups in Palestine.

All in all the common man is simply a pawn in the information wars. It is proving very difficult to sort out fact and fiction.

Peace
WR


If you think Iran cares about the Palestinian people you are sadly mistaken. Their support for Hammas in Gaza shows just how much they care. Israel gave them the land for peace and Israel got rockets in return. If Hammas in Gaza stopped attacking Israel Iran would stop sending them money. Same with Hesbola in Lebanon where they recently showed their true colors and ticked off every Sunni nation in the mid-east.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
We are all very vulnerable to lack of unbiased sources.

Good point -- it's important to remember this is a discussion about a report about an editorial about a speech. Two pages and no one has posted a link to the editorial in question, or quoted from it (although I suspect some have read it).

Here's the link:

As things look, Israel may well attack Iran soon



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Star given. I approach this subject with fear and loathing. We are in the middle of a "war" and we really do not seem to have an enemy. Apparently we have not been able to "smoke them out" as of yet.

With that in mind I have had a few frank debates with educated Muslims and I always leave the debate with my hair standing on end.

They seem to give no quarter to the fact that the Koran is the only book of "truth" and in many ways they remind me of over zealous Christians except for the fact that killing an infidel seems to be supported in thier world view.

Most educated persons I have spoken with do not support the idea of crushing any nation or religion with two exceptions. The far right wing Christians (most of whom are mindless parrots) and the extreme Muslim's.

Is Iran messing with Iraq? OF course they are. They had a 10 year war with Iraq and now they see an oppurtunity to conquer Iraq and reunite Persia.

Does Israel have an interest in taking out the nuclear capabilities of Iran? Of course. Iran has missle technology from North Korea as well as the ability launch a missle strike. All they are missing is the vital enriched Uranium to carry out the strike.

The factor that will and can light the fuse is lack of dialouge. I am sure nobody in Iran wants to see their country destroyed. I am assured that Israel does not want their country destroyed.

Maybe we need to sit down and talk. Have a couple of soccer games and try to work things out.

It has worked with China. We played ping pong and worked some things out.
Why not Iran?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


Because "Only Nixon could go to China." (Do you know where that's from? In the context of it's source it was a brilliantly written line).

I'm going to reveal a bit about my perspective when I say this, but I think it serves the argument: We lack the corporate will to engage our financial sources in any way that is not subservient. I refer not to the Jews, I must point out. The fledgling 'global' market has a mother, and she is economically coercive and driven to 'direct' this play according to her 'script.'

The players that control the national and diplomatic field of play are vested to gain by participating both tacitly and explicitly to the ends of the plan to harness the 'wealth' as they have defined it. They will not willingly submit to a mandate of the masses (sorry to sound Marxist here, but the concept applies.) It s clear that they operate outside the influence of those who 'purportedly' are their masters - the people. This is applicable in apparently ALL industrialized nations. The Central Banking system and fractional lending will be the death of all our dreams of freedom.



[edit on 1-6-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 

Looks like a Muslim rag. Nothing comes up in the article though...just a bunch of ads. Is it written in a different language?

Can we get inspectors into Iran? It looks like we cannot. The inspectors are worried as is the UN. The Bush administration has backed off a little and handed over most of the inteligence to the Un and they are shocked.



On the basis of that combination of new and old evidence, over the last few months, the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have come to worry that Iran — before suspending its work nearly five years ago — may have made real progress toward designing a deadly weapon.
The New York Times June 1 2008

also this may raise your eyebrows....


Last week, the issue crystallized publicly when the inspectors issued an uncharacteristically blunt demand for more information from Tehran and, even more uncharacteristically, disclosed the existence of 18 secretly-obtained documents that suggest Tehran had high interest in designing a nuclear weapon before the program was suspended
The New York Times June 1 2008

Their seems to be evidence that Israel has cause for concern.

www.nytimes.com...

Furthermore, diplomacy is at a standstill. We need dialogue. Their is no need for any sort of nuclear program in Iran. The US has not built a nuclear plant in almost two decades. Why is Iran so keen on this? It seems that Europe is asking the same question.


IF THERE was an easier way to end Iran's nuclear defiance, Britain, France, Germany, America, Russia and China would have hit on it by now. The six countries trying to coax Iran into negotiation are stuck.
www.economist.com...

Also...and this is scary...


Helped by new intelligence from America and from several other IAEA members, as well as their own digging around, the inspectors have put some pointed questions to Iran about military connections to its nuclear programme. They especially want answers about studies that appear to show as yet undisclosed uranium-related work, high-explosive testing of triggers for nuclear bombs, a plan for an underground nuclear-test shaft and efforts to redesign the nose-cone of Iran's far-flying Shahab-3 rocket to accommodate a nuclear warhead.
The Economist May 29th 2008

As of this present moment I support a surgical strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran. I believe this should be done via Israel as Iran presents a clear danger to Israel.

As I said earlier "Is destroying a sword an act of war?"

I do not support any other action against Iran unless Iran continues to pressure Israel and the West.

We need to have open dialogue with Iran. Iran has lied to Europe. Iran has lied to Canada. They seem to be in pursuit of a Nuke.

We need to sit down and sort this out before it is to late. Nobody wins in this game if it escalates.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 
Yes..its a squeeze play. We have extreme issues at home and abroad.

You may be right and I open to your theory.

I shudder if you are right.

On the other hand I see the need to stop this nuclear nonsense in Iran. If you are correct, then, what I think, concerning Iran, does not matter one iota.

If I read you correctly Iran is playing into the hands of the powers that be and freedom here at home will end as we know it.





[edit on 1-6-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Ahhh...Spock and the Klingons...hope I spelled Klingons right.
"Because "Only Nixon could go to China" Vulcan proverb



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


You got it! (You got Klingon right too
)

I hope truly that I am being overly cynical. It just seems that in all matters international we always seem to fight each other, and mistakenly attribute our 'leaders' personalities and agendas with the people of the nation - hating each other for no real reason that translates into the lofty ideals we are told we are supporting. It leaves me feeling as if we are all captive audiences in an exercise in cinema verite where our choices are to play "a walk on part in a war or a lead role in a cage" (another obscure cultural reference) - but either way we have to pay the price of admission.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I want to look at oil futures to see if their is a spike. lol (as if their is not one now) What else can we look at to see what the future holds for Iran?



Only Nixon could go to China!


[edit on 1-6-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
"numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future:

-A leading member of America’s Jewish community told Newsmax in April that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President Cheney’s March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for the U.S. attack.


-The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to carry 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, needed to destroy Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities.


-A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments.


-Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said Israel is “preparing for heavy casualties,” expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack.


-Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s highest-ranking officials.

-The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help defend Israel from missile attacks.

-Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across the Iraqi border to kill American troops.

-And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. estimates."

dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join