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.

 

Obama Admits US Actively Seeking Regime Change In Iran IN WEEKS!

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
*stay with me, this is NOT a "bash Obama" thread!, the left-right paradigm that has infected the US (and ATS) makes my head
*

So, regime change or attempted regime change has been used time and time again in our history by the CIA and others to get what we want-

Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1959, Turkey 1960, Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960, Iraq 1963, Brazil 1964, Republic of Ghana 1966, Iraq 1968, Chile 1973, Afghanistan 1973-74, Argentina 1976, Afghanistan 1978-1980s, Iran 1980, Turkey 1980, Nicaragua 1981-1990, Haiti 1991, Iraq 1992-1995, Guatemala 1993, Zimbabwe 2000s, Serbia 2000, Venezuela 2002, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004, Equatorial Guinea 2004, Haiti 2004, Lebanon 2005, Palestinian Authority 2006-Present, Somalia 2006-2007, Venezuela 2007, Iran 2001-present...

en.wikipedia.org...

Were some of them warranted? Perhaps. Do we ever advertise it? No.

OOPS, let's not forget about our own regime change (JFK).

Still with me?
Good.

Obama made a statement yesterday while visiting with the French President that it seems went under the radar-

(discussing the situation in Iran)

"My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring," Obama said. "I'm interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks."


www.reuters.com...

Obama either misspoke or inadvertently admitted REGIME CHANGE IN WEEKS.

Consider this-


Washington and Iran sources disclose that the G8 ministers meeting in Gatineau, Quebec, agreed to leave the door open to dialogue with Iran after they were discreetly informed that the Obama administration had launched a secret bid to engage Iran's radical Revolutionary Guards in nuclear talks.



But they pointedly sidestepped mention of sanctions or any other practical action for curbing Iran's dash for a nuclear bomb, after learning that the US president was no longer behind active steps that would antagonize Tehran. Instead, Washington had sent out messengers to meet high-ranking Guards representatives in Tehran and a number of European capitals in pursuit of a new diplomatic initiative for engaging the IRGC in dialogue, after failing to get anywhere with Tehran's regime leaders.


debka.com...

So, Obama admits regime change coming, and word leaks we are having secret meetings with the Revolutionary Guard.

~~HOLY CRAP FOLKS - IT IS ABOUT TO BE ON!~~


related current threads-
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 31-3-2010 by Signals]




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I do not think it will fly very far. The country of Iran is controled by Muslim Clerics and they have the final say as to what the president of Iran can do and pretty much to who he is. So the President and his adminstration can talk to all of the Revolutionary guards they want, but unless they can get the clerics on board, it will not go very far.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Star and flag for you...just on the basis of, if this is true, it is big news. Now, I wonder if he was just speaking about something else...I seriously doubt it though because there is something sinister going on, and there is "change" coming.

Good post!

Edited to restructure a thought


[edit on 31-3-2010 by MarshMallow_Snake]

[edit on 31-3-2010 by MarshMallow_Snake]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Interesting... and regime change in Iran starting in 2001? What? Sorry but I call BS.

Iran was basically NATO's ally in 2001 and 2002... up until Bush's axis of evil speech in January 2003 when he named Iran as a part of the axis of evil.

Then the good relations between Iran and NATO were shattered... THANKS A LOT BUSH!


If it wasn't for this speech, Iran wouldn't be a problem right now, they would be our friend.

Anyway, this regime change business probably started in 2003, or more likely 2005, as the news reported that covert operations started in Iran.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
IMO...the use of the word 'regime' is in reference to sanctions he has been discussing and pressuring governments to support via the UN with fervor over the past week or so...

Regime as in a "prevailing system".

A very poor choice of words to use in such matters none-the-less.

my 2 cents,

MG



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Yes, but who has the guns?

We cut a deal with the Revolutionary Guards and make this thing happen pronto....

At least that's what I'm seeing.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Your forgot Australia 1975...

The CIA had a huge hand, of the Nugan variety
, in the downfall of the Whitlam government...

The US was convinced Whitlam was either going to leave or seriously reduce the importance of the ANZUS alliance to Australia and was going to close joint Australian-US bases (which the Australian government has no say in running, so they're not really joint) in Australia...

The US engaging in regime change in the country of allegedly one of its closest allies, reminds one a lot of what Israel did recently with the forged passports belonging to nations who were presumably its "friends".

Certainly not the act of a friend or ally



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Seems like some selective editing by Reuters..

in context:


My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring. So I’m not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place; I’m interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks. And we are working diligently with our international partners, emphasizing to them that, as Nicolas said, this is not simply an issue of trying to isolate Iran; it has enormous implications for the safety and the security of the entire region. We don’t want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.


source

bold:mine

[edit on 3/31/2010 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I heard him say that on my local radio station as well...thought it was a strange slip

very interesting indeed!

thanks for posting!



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Obama was talking about the sanctions when he said regime. I heard the statements on the radio. He said he was interested in the sanctions against Iran taking place in weeks rather than months. Nothing personal, but I think this is a bit of a stretch...



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Here, Sarkozy uses the words "regime" and "sanctions" together. I believe Obama was referring to the sanctions as a regime. Strange choice of words, perhaps intentionally.


n Washington, Sarkozy said "the time has come to take decisions" on Iran and that with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, "we will make all necessary efforts to make sure that Europe as a whole engages in the sanctions regime."

Source: www.reuters.com...


[edit on 31-3-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
*stay with me, this is NOT a "bash Obama" thread!, the left-right paradigm that has infected the US (and ATS) makes my head
*
So, regime change or attempted regime change has been used time and time again in our history by the CIA and others to get what we want-


You mean what the guys with the dough want, cuz I doubt Joe Six Pack could give a rat's patoot.

Let's call it what it is...overthrowing the government of another sovereign nation. And you wonder why people mount guerrilla actions against the U.S.?

A mite presumptuous, wouldn't you say?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Seems like some selective editing by Reuters..

in context:


My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring. So I’m not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place; I’m interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks. And we are working diligently with our international partners, emphasizing to them that, as Nicolas said, this is not simply an issue of trying to isolate Iran; it has enormous implications for the safety and the security of the entire region. We don’t want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.


source

bold:mine

[edit on 3/31/2010 by JacKatMtn]


hmmmm....Thanks for posting that! Why the selective editing from my source? Any chance the White House link you provided are the ones doing the selective editing?
(okay, that would be a stretch....)

Perhaps a Freudian slip?

What about CIA meetings with Revolutionary Guard?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Keep trying, if you would like to hear the words come out of their mouthes, you can watch the event here:

www.whitehouse.gov...

Is that CGI



moving on now



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 




Yep, just trying to save a thread
I still think there's something to this though.

Thanks for providing some voice of reason...Perhaps it's time for a self-mandated break from conspiracy for Signals?




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 



"I'm interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks."


There's many definitions of "regime".

Perhaps this one is applicable here:

www.thefreedictionary.com...


A regulated system


i.e. sanctions.

Although I do think regime change is going to be the end result.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
He never said anything about regime change....he was refering to a regime of sanctions. Leaping to conclusions and twisting what is said gives a bad name to genuine posters.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrabbit1
He never said anything about regime change....he was refering to a regime of sanctions. Leaping to conclusions and twisting what is said gives a bad name to genuine posters.


Thanks for the advice. Maybe checking someone's profile and previous posts before leaping to conclusions or accusing someone of not being a genuine poster would help clear things up too


If you read my links in the OP you would see nothing was twisted by me. It's easy to jump to conclusions when a reliable source (as far as sources go
) quotes the president incorrectly, if, that in fact happened.

What about the Revolutionary Guard meetings? CIA just making new friends?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrabbit1
 


" He never said anything about regime change....he was refering to a regime of sanctions. Leaping to conclusions and twisting what is said gives a bad name to genuine posters. "


Think before you Speak your mind here SONNY............



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If you can show me a quote where he says "regime change" i will gladly listen.

As reported by the BBC

The US and France have vowed to work together to push for new UN sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.

After talks in Washington with French leader Nicolas Sarkozy, US President Barack Obama said he hoped to have the sanctions in place "within weeks".

Mr Sarkozy promised "all necessary efforts to make sure Europe as a whole engaged in the sanctions regime".

Western powers suspect Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear arms capability. Tehran denies this.

It says its atomic programme is entirely peaceful.

'Mad race'

In a joint news conference with Mr Sarkozy at the White House, Mr Obama said he was not interested in waiting months for new sanctions.

"My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring," he said. "I am interested in seeing that regime in place within weeks."

For his part, President Sarkozy said Iran could not continue its "mad race" to try to complete its suspect nuclear programme.

"The time has come to take decisions. Iran cannot continue its mad race," Mr Sarkozy said at the joint press conference.

He said that he would work with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to get European backing for the sanctions regime.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by blackrabbit1]




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join