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.

 

Ahmadinejad says expects U.S. to attack MidEast soon

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Ahmadinejad says expects U.S. to attack MidEast soon


news.yahoo.com

Iran expects the United States to launch a military strike on "at least two countries" in the Middle East in the next three months, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state-run Press TV.

In an interview recorded on Monday, Ahmadinejad did not specify whether he thought Iran itself would be attacked nor did he say what intelligence led him to expect such a move.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran's nuclear program which they fear could lead to it making a bomb, something Iran denies.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   



Ahmadinejad said Iran had "very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot, according to which they to wage a psychological war against Iran."


I thought they were already at war in the Middle East.
Maybe he's suggesting that Iran will actually put up a fight and get the entire region involved.

Makes sense that 2 years of military service is being considered now, not that we haven't seen this coming for years.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Portugoal
 


I think what he meant was that the US was going to attack two more Middle East countries and by doing that they will intentionally be keeping Iran on high alert, i.e. psychological.

This morning I was watching Morning Joe on MSNBC and a military analyst was sounding all war like by saying that these leaked Wikileak documents reveal that Iran is helping the Taliban a lot more than we knew.

And which country is planning on a two year conscription? I will assume by your name it is Portugal?



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That should clarify what I meant a little better.

If you think about it, what 2 countries in the ME would America consider attacking next? Pakistan? I don't think so. I think Iran has to be one of them. Occupying two more countries essentially forces Iran into war, whether or not Iran is actually one of those "at least 2 countries."

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Portugoal]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Another 2 countries to be attacked?, Could America honestly cope with all this?....i think not. Although its believable, America couldnt sustain conflict with another 2 countries, and then if you throw in the Korean saga they/we would be biting off more than can be chewed.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Portugoal
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That should clarify what I meant a little better.

If you think about it, what 2 countries in the ME would America consider attacking next? Pakistan? I don't think so. I think Iran has to be one of them. Occupying two more countries essentially forces Iran into war, whether or not Iran is actually one of those "at least 2 countries."

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Portugoal]


pakistan is not a middle eastern country and the us will never consider attacking it.

my guess would be yemen or lebanon. or some african country near the middle east.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
There has been talk about Yemen lately. The other country? My guess is Lebanon. Not that the US will attack directly but Israel may and then get the US involved by default depending on what Hezbollah does.

Pakistan? Well the US did tell Musharrif right after 9-11 that if they didnt get on board with the war on terror that the US would bomb his country back into the stone age. Plus Obama said during the elections that Pakistan was the country the US should have been focusing on-not Iraq. But Pakistan isnt a Middle eastern country and they have been somewhat cooperating so its probably not them.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I'm 90% confident Israel and Hezbollah will be waging full scale war by the year's end. All the signs point to it.

Therefore i could see US involvement in that.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Depends on who the two countries are. Also depends on if you mean "attacked" or "occupied". If its 2 Yemen "type" countries then yeah-it could be done no doubt. The US only has about 300,000 soldiers deployed in active battle so that still leaves about a million ready to go........




Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
Another 2 countries to be attacked?, Could America honestly cope with all this?....i think not. Although its believable, America couldnt sustain conflict with another 2 countries, and then if you throw in the Korean saga they/we would be biting off more than can be chewed.


[edit on 27-7-2010 by princeofpeace]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Interesting times indeed starred and flagged.

Just started a thread on British PM Cameron's comments on the Gaza strip, likening it to a prison camp. The comments were made during a conference in Ankara, he also publicly condemned the flotilla raid.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bringing Turkey on side to get some extra leverage with Iran?

I was sure we had all come to the conclusion that the US could not fight another war let alone on another two fronts. Perhaps he is referring to Pakistan and Yemen. We have seen thanks to Wikileaks the accusation coming to light that Pakistan intelligence was involved with the Taliban on some logistical level.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I seen that too. It was just played on CNN as well. How could these people tie Iran to wikileaks!!! There is 90 thousand pages in these documents. Do they think we believe they have read them all?!? They're going to try and scew the info here to their advantage.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
THE U.S IS BROKE war is nothing to a broke nation keep the printing presses rolling at the fed add the draft to a sunken economy create military jobs everybody is happy except the parents whos sons/daughters die for lies/corporate greed/nwo/oil/drugs/



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


To 'occupy' you would have to first 'attack', and once the occupation is underway, how long could it be sustained for. Having a few ME countries with grievences against us is one thing, but IMO to try and take over another 2 would be suicidal, not only in loss of life and cost but i think politically it would ruffle a few feathers. The people that are on our side may not be for much longer.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Portugoal
 


when I read this part:


Ahmadinejad said Iran had "very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot, according to which they to wage a psychological war against Iran."


I had to think about the following thread on wich I as well responded

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anybody here thinks these things could be related? as in this is what Ahmadinejad was talking about?

That what wikileaks is doing can most certainly be called "psychological warfare"...

[edit on 27/7/2010 by faceoff85]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Thats what i mean. You could "attack" without "occupying". Say the US knows of two countries over there with terror training camps and some terror weapons amnufacturing infrastructure. Well it could launch air strikes and naval strikes at said targets and it would be considered an "attack" but not an "occupation" It would also be in line with what Ahmadinajad is saying with "2 mid-east countries to be ATTACKED soon".






Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


To 'occupy' you would have to first 'attack', and once the occupation is underway, how long could it be sustained for. Having a few ME countries with grievences against us is one thing, but IMO to try and take over another 2 would be suicidal, not only in loss of life and cost but i think politically it would ruffle a few feathers. The people that are on our side may not be for much longer.




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
Another 2 countries to be attacked?, Could America honestly cope with all this?....i think not. Although its believable, America couldnt sustain conflict with another 2 countries, and then if you throw in the Korean saga they/we would be biting off more than can be chewed.


History repeats itself. Germany did the same thing, so did the Axis of Evil in WW1. Fact is, countries who attempt to dominate the world end up repressing their people, causing genocide on a certain people, fighting wars on too many fronts and eventually the world turns against them overthrowing them for good and become ruled by the new Alliance.

The US is going down the same road the Germans did under Hitler, except the only difference is their is no Genocide as of yet, but im willing to bet the next Genocide will be against the Muslim People. Isreal did not learn from what happened to its people and are repressing another people with whom they should be neighbours with.

Its a sad state of affairs, but not surprising.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by EspyderMan]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonny2410
I'm 90% confident Israel and Hezbollah will be waging full scale war by the year's end. All the signs point to it.

Therefore i could see US involvement in that.


Agreed!

Nat ural gas could lead to new Lebanon-Israel war


The discovery of large natural gas reserves under the waters of the eastern Mediterranean could potentially mean a huge economic windfall for Israel and Lebanon, both resource-poor nations — if it doesn't spark new war between them.

The Hezbollah militant group has blared warnings that Israel plans to steal natural gas from Lebanese territory and vows to defend the resources with its arsenal of rockets. Israel says the fields it is developing do not extend into Lebanese waters, a claim experts say appears to be correct, but the maritime boundary between the two countries — still officially at war — has never been precisely set.

"Lebanon's need for the resistance has doubled today in light of Israeli threats to steal Lebanon's oil wealth," Hezbollah's Executive Council chief Hashem Safieddine said last month. The need to protect the offshore wealth "pushes us in the future to strengthen the resistance's capabilities."



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by faceoff85
 
Very interesting.

Maybe there is a connection.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Ahmadinejad is exaggerating to gain world attention to prevent this very thing from happening. Barring an "accident" or Israel going rogue, no one is going to attack anyone.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
At least 2 countries? yeah, they are called Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have been preparing to attack them for close to 15 years. all our preperations seemed to have payed off too, because i could have sworn we were already attacking 2 countries in the middle east.

This is propaganda aimed directly at us, the loyal news consumer. Big play on words.

Aren't we always preparing to attack the middle east? isn't that like, our day job or something?



[edit on 27-7-2010 by SPACEYstranger]



new topics




 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join