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-"Warmongering" On Iran Sounds Like Lead-Up to Iraq War

page: 2
50
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Ron Paul's just looking for attention and pandering to his own crowd. They're no different to the pro-war crowd, as both views are based entirely on the nuclear issue

Umm there is a difference between this and the pro-war crowd
this side doesn't support war profiteering
it doesn't support the robbing and slavery of the people

and this isn't about a nuclear issue it's about an economic one and foreign policy.


Originally posted by john124
The real issues are the failures of the iranian govt. to prevent widespread protests.

Nobody is saying Iran is a great model country
Neither is the United States
the U.S. had a bill to support iranian dissenters while domestic ones get the boot up the arse, along with an LRad device in their ears and riot police at the republican convention gassing protesters and as well as the G20 summit in pittsburg.

Doesn't mean it's time to invade either country


Originally posted by john124
They cannot even speak at their own universities, never mind use diplomacy at the UN, or govern their own country.

Don't Tase me Bro!
Many can't speak at their own universities here either


Originally posted by john124
They're not even in control, as they are reactive and not exactly pro-active.

The U.S. is not proactive either, it's just pre-emptive as in pre-emptive war which used to mean an act of war.


Originally posted by john124
The regime would prefer us to talk about their nuclear weapons programme so our attention is diverted away from their own collapse at the hands of their own people. I'm sure they would love Israel to bomb this 2nd facility, so they can rally their people against the west. Either way they're finished and deserve to be, and that doesn't make me pro-war, it makes me observant.

Everything that you are saying can also be said about the U.S.
You aren't being observant at all


Originally posted by john124
A leader in the revolutionary guards admitted that a couple of Friday's ago on Qod's day - opposition protests in Tehran were around 2 million, and 4 million around Iran.

Go to youtube and look at how protesters at the G20 summit were treated
There's a thin line between Iran's Govt. and the American Govt.

It's not country vs. country
it's Govt. of any country vs. the People.

Until you learn that you can't call yourself observant

Thanks




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Both views are similar as they concentrate on a perspective which is distorted (the govt./MSM obsessed view on the nuclear issue, and his Mr. Paul's views a reaction to that and the consequences). Ron Paul may be correct, I wasn't stating he was wrong in any way from his perspective, just that it lacks a complete picture.

You seem to have a simplistic view that one cannot criticise a country without being pro-war. Were anyone raped/tortured in prison from the G-20 protests? Does that justify Iran's torturing should that have taken place anyway.

Your overly-simplistic views demonstrate a distorted method of observation.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Actually a lot of what I said is still true even if Ron Paul is correct.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by bigyin
 


Actually a lot of what I said is still true even if Ron Paul is correct.


I agree. I'm not sure about the first part - I don't have that much experience with Ron, but he doesn't strike me as a panderer (just watched him on The Daily Show - Jon Stewart seems to like him).

But, I concur that Iran looks like they are using the nuclear issue to smoke screen their crumbling government. I definetly could see them provoking an attack to rouse their people.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


S and F from me.

I agree with what this gentleman is saying wholeheartdly. I wish our politicians in the uk were like this guy.

I sure hope they dont take us all to war again...

Peace



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
You seem to have a simplistic view that one cannot criticise a country without being pro-war.

you can criticize a country without being pro-war, and the opposite is true as well.

but right now if you are pro-war I would consider you anti-american
and that doesn't really mean much
what really means alot is that you are anti-people!

war is bankrupting you beyond belief and you want more?

not only that, but war is also subsidized by illegal money on top of that
fiat = slavery


Originally posted by john124
Were anyone raped/tortured in prison from the G-20 protests? Does that justify Iran's torturing should that have taken place anyway.

Nobody was tortured but a few people were kidnapped.
Kidnapped by the same people sworn to protect them.
some of them were gassed, these are YOUR countrymen

everything that obama criticizes about Iran, the exact same thing is happening in his own country which he is president of.

Nothing justifies Iran's torturing, but that doesn't mean it's time for another senseless war that cannot be afforded.
It's just more money for international bankers and the people lose.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I agree with his views on almost everything, with the notable exceptions of 9/11 (he sees a conspiracy), abortion (he would legally prohibit it), and health care (he opposes universal health care).

As for the Iran issue, he's mistaken, if anyone attacks Iran it will be the Israelis, by air, and it will fail.

A ground war is unthinkable, plus we now have a much less beligerent administration.

In some ways he seems rooted in the past and unable to adapt, so he makes for a good conservative.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
...
but right now if you are pro-war I would consider you anti-american
and that doesn't really mean much
what really means alot is that you are anti-people!

war is bankrupting you beyond belief and you want more?


Maybe I'm misreading what John124 posted, but to me he isn't advocating war against Iran. I think he's saying that Iran is collapsing internally and will fail without any outside help. They are using the nuclear issue to cloud the way they are abusing the opposition in Iran, and are hoping for some sort of attack from Israel or the U.S. to band their country together against the infidel invaders.

Sorry if I'm wrong about what John said - either way, I believe this is Iran's primary motivation.

On the side, John124's avatar states his location as England, so I don't think he's an American. Again, I could be wrong.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by CAP811]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Whoever is right or wrong or whatever the complete picture is one thing is as clear as fact..

They (whoever you want 'they' to be) are ramping up a conflict with Iran, and that is not good news.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
War spending will be about the only thing that will keep the economy from dipping back into a recession in 2010....Loose monetary policy won't get them re-elected....the banks are not lending...they are curtailing lending.....perhaps they need a false flag ....perhaps in Isreal...and then we send in the troops...then we spend some more BIZ as Usual.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
The curtain is being pulled on the wizard in the background, and there falls the house of cards.

It's only a matter of time till the "truth" is told, and people realize what this world is all about.

The time of the Ego and Greed are running out.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   


U.S. intelligence had “learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised”, one of the officials said, according to the White House transcript. The Iranians had informed the IAEA, he asserted, because “they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid…”

Later in the briefing, however, the official said “we believe”, rather than “we learned”, in referring to that claim, indicating that it is only an inference rather than being based on hard intelligence.

The official refused to explain how U.S. analysts had arrived at that conclusion, but an analysis by the defence intelligence consulting firm IHS Jane’s of a satellite photo of the site taken Saturday said there is a surface-to-air missile system located at the site.

Since surface-to-air missiles protect many Iranian military sites, however, their presence at the Qom site doesn’t necessarily mean that Iran believed that Washington had just discovered the enrichment plant.

The official said the administration had organised an intelligence briefing on the facility for the IAEA during the summer on the assumption that the Iranians might “choose to disclose the facility themselves”. But he offered no explanation for the fact that there had been no briefing given to the IAEA or anyone else until Sep. 24 – three days after the Iranians disclosed the existence of the facility.

A major question surrounding the official story is why the Barack Obama administration had not done anything – and apparently had no plans to do anything – with its intelligence on the Iranian facility at Qom prior to the Iranian letter to the IAEA. When asked whether the administration had intended to keep the information in its intelligence briefing secret even after the meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1, the senior official answered obliquely but revealingly, “I think it’s impossible to turn back the clock and say what might have been otherwise.”

In effect, the answer was no, there had been no plan for briefing the IAEA or anyone.

News media played up the statement by the senior administration official that U.S. intelligence had been “aware of this facility for years”.

But what was not reported was that he meant only that the U.S. was aware of a possible nuclear site, not one whose function was known.

The official in question acknowledged the analysts had not been able to identify it as an enrichment facility for a long time. In the “very early stage of construction,” said the official, “a facility like this could have multiple uses.” Intelligence analysts had to “wait until the facility had reached the stage of construction where it was undeniably intended for use as a centrifuge facility,” he explained.

The fact that the administration had made no move to brief the IAEA or other governments on the site before Iran revealed its existence suggests that site had not yet reached that stage where the evidence was unambiguous.

A former U.S. official who has seen the summary of the administration’s intelligence used to brief foreign governments told IPS he doubts the intelligence community had hard evidence that the Qom site was an enrichment plant. “I think they didn’t have the goods on them,” he said.


rawstory.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Good stuff. After watching this clip I asked myself out loud "How on earth did this guy not make president?" And as unfortunate as it is, there is only one answer. And it's because he's a nice guy, and TPTB don't want a nice president, they want one who will do whatever it takes to ruin other countries, steal their resources, stamp them underfoot. Whatever it takes to ensure that America stays top dog (in the short term) That approach... I wonder at it's wisdom in the long term.

Now we have Obama, the hammer in a velvet bag. He's all smooth words, but the foreign policy so far has been no different from Bush. That makes the neocons and the CIA/NSA/DOD/DHS very happy.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Lets see:

1.) Have meeting and get the backing of other countries so you can denounce Iran publicly for having Nuclear facilities.

2.) Start the propaganda wheels in the US moving so that our media floods us with anti-Iran news.

3.) Have the US get attacked by a "Terrorist" group that unmistakenly got its beginnings in Iran (training or base of operation)

4.) Spark US pride and a call to war among its people.

5.) Glass Iran or at least its military industrial complex.

This all sounds like it may have happened before....hmmmmmmm



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zenlike

Originally posted by Griever
I don't know if the American people could handle another one of these wars, Its ridiculous the troops are often streched too thin on multiple tours. How would they alleviate this problem another draft. I'd think there would probably be a public outcry the populus is sick and tired of the way things are. Compiled with the ressesion. this won't end well


No I don't think they would even think about attempting a draft now because if anything it would kick off a revolution faster then anything else.


A draft would help with unemployement though. If you can draft 5% of the population to fight on the ground then you can claim the unemployement is the lowest in the last 50 years and that the stimulus is working.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
It's not a free society if the media just promotes wars is it?

I don't agree with the president of Iran on most issues, however I agree with the congressman that this is dejavue.

United States raped Iraq. It is estimated up to a million Iraqi civilians have died from the war based on lies of non-existant forbidden weapons. Thousands of US soldiers are also dead or injured.

Now Iran is the NEW big threat, despite that they, like the congressman said, have done everything according to regulations. Also, unlike Iraq, Iran has never attacked another country.

If I lived in Iran I would not have voted on their current president, but just the fact that they have elections (although somewhat restricted ones) shows its not a 100 percent dictatorship like Iraq was.

Also, it's a country of 70+ million, -much- larger than Iraq. Iran produce its own fighter jets, tanks, rockets etc. If it turns into a war it might become a lot more disastrous than the invasion of Iraq, which was a broken society after years of sanctions and the 1st gulf war.

Even if I am against the warmongers, I support Israel but also a Palestinian state.


[edit on 1-10-2009 by Shades1035]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
There are some details I feel I should shine a light on. This nuclear facility is supposed to be in the Holy City of Qom (which is such a dreadful idea I find it hard to believe that Shia Muslims would support such a facility being there. In most guide books and reports you will read that Qom is the second most holy city in Iran. Well, yes, ... and, well, no.

In Qom, Hazrat Fatima is buried in the Hazrat Fatima Mosque. There are also some well-beloved daughters of Shia Islam buried there. Love and devotion to Hazrat Fatima is simply HUGE. People go on pilgrimage to the 'shrine of the saint', and these pilgrimages to Qom to go to the Hazrat Fatima Mosque are ENORMOUS. I have often thought they were far greater than those to the officially 'most holy' city in Iran.

Now here I get into things remembered from a long time ago, before the Shah fell from power. I recall an area near Qom being called something like 'the gateway to hell'. A geologist friend said that it was a very thin place in Earth's crust. I have spent the better part of the day trying to research this and have come up with nothing. So if I imagined it or dreamt it all up, then silly me.

But if I didn't dream it up, then it means something very, very serious. Say you have this nuclear facility at a place known to be a thinner place in the crust and mantel, I think most folk would agree that this was not a wise move. But what if you have a war and bunker-busting bombs are dropped on this area, then what will happen?

The horrifying thought lingers in my mind that such warfare will tear the Earth open and none of us can imagine the scale of such a rupture and what would happen to life on this world.

I pray to God that I have remembered this wrong. It is bad enough to have Western nations bombing the Holy City of Lady Fatima...

I can scarcely take it in, this madness being programmed into US Americans through the controlled news media. Gospodi pomiluj.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
No wait!!!

Let's do what Sean Hannity says we should do!! Bomb Iran, Pakinstan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

SOunds like a strategy of victory to me!!!

Americans don't surrender right...we fight to the end.....

yeah....

So did the NAZI's.

Bring our TROOPS HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Ron Paul is exactly right. I have noticed that the Iran news on the nuclear production was the exact kind of war propaganda that led up to the Iraq war. I plan whenever I can to ask everyone why the media acts as if the CIA found the new nuclear facility when Iran itself was the source of the information. I'll point out that it is just like when the media said Al-Quaida was in Iraq ready to attack America when in fact Al-Quaida hated Saddam Hussein and stated this regularly.

As for the guy who says Ron Paul sounds like just another politician, he definitely just needed some sleep. Politicians don't use logical facts and evidence to back up assertions. Rather, they shout empty emotional slogans and then have their following sheep follow them blindly. I've been researching *Rand* Paul's competition and despite looking at every single one of their videos they never have much substance and reasoning in their videos. They keep their positions a secret until it benefits them to say what they are. There is a difference between a politician and an actual person. Clearly, Ron Paul is an actual person and not just a politician.

The fact that lawyers & lobbysits, banks & insurance companies, and last and most importantly the big corporations are the top donors to nearly every member of congress is disturbing. But then look at Ron Paul's top donors: #1 US Army #2 US Navy #3 US Air Force. This is absolutely shocking and totally blows out of the water any idea he is just another politician.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Ron Paul's just looking for attention and pandering to his own crowd. They're no different to the pro-war crowd, as both views are based entirely on the nuclear issue, instead of more important internal issues within Iran. Reality is somewhere in the middle, and Iran did not comply with IAEA rules that they agreed with and tried to unilaterally walk away from, which is illegitimate according to international law.

The real issues are the failures of the iranian govt. to prevent widespread protests. They cannot even speak at their own universities, never mind use diplomacy at the UN, or govern their own country. They're not even in control, as they are reactive and not exactly pro-active. The regime would prefer us to talk about their nuclear weapons programme so our attention is diverted away from their own collapse at the hands of their own people. I'm sure they would love Israel to bomb this 2nd facility, so they can rally their people against the west. Either way they're finished and deserve to be, and that doesn't make me pro-war, it makes me observant.

A leader in the revolutionary guards admitted that a couple of Friday's ago on Qod's day - opposition protests in Tehran were around 2 million, and 4 million around Iran. This was after sites like PressTV announced the crowds were millions in support of Palestine. It's these small truths that they let slip which tells us exactly why the regime have lost control.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by john124]


Many who read my posts will know my position on this - I completely agree with Ron Paul.

Warmongering? Oh no - impossible - right John124? Ooops - didn't I accidentally label you Stinky and Dooper with that a few days ago - my bad. I should have simply said - misinformed.


Ok - rebuttal time.

1) The west walked away from the plan.
2) Irans internal issues are nobodies business but Irans.
3) The internal 'collapse' as you put it, is pure propaganda. There are agents trying to create some incidents - but largely they are being rejected by the Iranian people - who are decently informed.
4) They have pro Palestinian demonstrations - ok - terrible news?
5) I see no loss of control, except on the subject of truth as presented by western media.


The internal issues with Iran should definitely not be the business of the US - or the west.

What Ron Paul can't say on this clip, is that Herculean efforts are being made to incite social unrest inside Iran - they tried to bring it to a head on the last election - and failed, but they will continue their efforts.

The intelligence agencies of the west should get out of Iran and stop messing with its internal politics.

This is purely a NWO agenda - they don't like the relationship that Iran is developing in the middle east and around the world - it is becoming politically powerful. Plus - it has a crap load of oil - which it is selling in Euro's.

All the press saying that the leadership is under fire is pure propaganda - the policies may not be the most popular globally - but the people are still supporting them.

People wonder why Iran is executing dissidents? Chances are they aren't at all - they are foreign agents - they can just threaten to execute them - if the west makes a noise and tries to get them back - then the Iranians have the proof they are agents, if the west does nothing - then they are rid of foreign agents.

The leaders of Iran are not finished - if they have to detain and execute more spies and agents - then they will. I wonder how many agents want to sign up for Iran after the last batch got executed?

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Amagnon]




top topics



 
50
<< 1   >>

log in

join