US preparing for massive MILITARY STRIKE on IRAN ! WTF

[Falseflagop]

This would be total chaos, and imho RUssia and China will stand stand idol on this. These NEO-CONS if true are NUTS!


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.ht ml

[4Horsemen]

Hello, WWIII, if this ever happens. Russia and China are licking their chops right now. I'm hoping this is just blowing smoke, but you never know.

[JMann]

Calm down. America isn't about to attack Iran. The conspiracy thickens, doesn't it.

Edit: I will adjust my comment. We may strike Iran but there is no way in hell we will go to war in Iran. Personally I have no problem with preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons but I know that isn't really the Paul message but I think we all have our disagreements but support the vast majority of his message.

[slantedview]

I've heard enough rhetoric to believe they would strike Iran (the neo-cons are out of their minds), but with how tired the American public is of war, I don't think Americans would stand for it.

[Zydeco]

Yes, JMann, I'm sure we've got 3 aircraft carriers in the region because we're NOT going to attack Iran. That makes sense.

[Zydeco]

I've heard enough rhetoric to believe they would strike Iran (the neo-cons are out of their minds), but with how tired the American public is of war, I don't think Americans would stand for it.

That's what false flag operations R 4! Whip the sheeple into a frenzy.

Will they go Tonkin Gulf or 9/11? I predict the latter.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

This would be total chaos, and imho RUssia and China will stand stand idol on this. These NEO-CONS if true are NUTS!


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.ht ml

This will be a very foolish move.

[EvilEngineer]

Well, when it comes to conventional war far, army vs army, our forces really and truly do kick ass. Our problem comes when we entangle our selves in nation building and police actions. But of course, why are we going in? Nuclear weapons? ... this sounds too damn familiar to our reasoning to Iraq. What is the true objective? ... oil, duh.

Sadly any war protests will be met by police action here in the US, and the seizure of personal property. Emperor Bush is on his power trip. Frankly I'm not going to be surprised if in the next few months there will be an "emergency" that he will use to invoke his executive orders.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, when it comes to conventional war far, army vs army, our forces really and truly do kick ass. Our problem comes when we entangle our selves in nation building and police actions. But of course, why are we going in? Nuclear weapons? ... this sounds too damn familiar to our reasoning to Iraq. What is the true objective? ... oil, duh.

Sadly any war protests will be met by police action here in the US, and the seizure of personal property. Emperor Bush is on his power trip. Frankly I'm not going to be surprised if in the next few months there will be an "emergency" that he will use to invoke his executive orders.


We shouldn't have a standing army
If we used our CIA intelligence back in 2001, 9/11 wouldn't have ever happened.
What is the reasoning for a draft? If America is being invaded, you don't think it'd be incentive enough for people to want to volunteer? We never need a draft. Volunteers can be an indicator of public support.

[EvilEngineer]

We shouldn't have a standing army
If we used our CIA intelligence back in 2001, 9/11 wouldn't have ever happened.
What is the reasoning for a draft? If America is being invaded, you don't think it'd be incentive enough for people to want to volunteer? We never need a draft. Volunteers can be an indicator of public support.


Shh, that makes sense and doesn't involve an elite few making hand over fist profit off of other peoples blood! :mad:

If we follow that advice we might have peace, prosperity, and actual freedom...:eek:

[JMann]

Well, when it comes to conventional war far, army vs army, our forces really and truly do kick ass. Our problem comes when we entangle our selves in nation building and police actions. But of course, why are we going in? Nuclear weapons? ... this sounds too damn familiar to our reasoning to Iraq. What is the true objective? ... oil, duh.

Sadly any war protests will be met by police action here in the US, and the seizure of personal property. Emperor Bush is on his power trip. Frankly I'm not going to be surprised if in the next few months there will be an "emergency" that he will use to invoke his executive orders.

Though we had bad intel on Iraq we know for a fact Iran is attempting to acquire nukes. They openly admit it. I have no problem with protecting our oil supply as if there is anything that is an issue of national security it is access to cheap oil.

[Electric Church]

The conspiracy thickens ....Personally I have no problem with preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons ..

sniff sniff

[constituent]

Though we had bad intel on Iraq we know for a fact Iran is attempting to acquire nukes. They openly admit it. I have no problem with protecting our oil supply as if there is anything that is an issue of national security it is access to cheap oil.

WE didn't have anything. The Office of Special Plans or whatever it was called manufactured bad intel... think cheney's daughter.

If you have no problem w/ protecting our oil supply... go protect it.

[SeanEdwards]

Though we had bad intel on Iraq we know for a fact Iran is attempting to acquire nukes. They openly admit it. I have no problem with protecting our oil supply as if there is anything that is an issue of national security it is access to cheap oil.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Iran has admitted that they are seeking nuclear power, something they are permitted to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Certain people claim that Iran is lying, and that the real reason is for the development of nuclear weapons. As far as I know, no one has provided concrete evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program.

[BenIsForRon]

Though we had bad intel on Iraq we know for a fact Iran is attempting to acquire nukes. They openly admit it. I have no problem with protecting our oil supply as if there is anything that is an issue of national security it is access to cheap oil.

You don't go to war over oil. It is morally wrong. If Iran wants to trade their oil in euros, tough shit, we have to figure out a way to get by without their oil.

[Johnnybags]

I believe if you watch WEL stock. Pre Iraq war the stock shot up like a rocket on fears of a strike on Iraq and once Bush gave the orders and the oil wells really were not damaged it tanked. If Wel picks up volume and price, it is probably a go. If you see over a million shares and nice pop it is getting closer. I think it went from 2.00 or so in early March to 8.00 the day before or right around the start of the Iraq war. Someone knew we were going in.

[LibertyBelle]

Though we had bad intel on Iraq we know for a fact Iran is attempting to acquire nukes. They openly admit it. I have no problem with protecting our oil supply as if there is anything that is an issue of national security it is access to cheap oil.

The intel was manufactured from the get go. When that was revealed, they had to push something else....spreading 'democracy'. When that idea was failing with many in America they had to push something else.....Saddam was aiding and abbetting Al queda. All of it lies. As for WMDs, our gov't has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Hypocrites. And a crazy administration sitting near the red button. Actually, since 1913 we have had mostly crazy administrations....:eek:

Cheap oil? You think that's what this is about? Oil was $1.25/gallon right before 9/11, does that tell you anything? These wars haven't cheapened a damn thing, but have reaked havoc on our economy.

[JMann]

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Iran has admitted that they are seeking nuclear power, something they are permitted to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Certain people claim that Iran is lying, and that the real reason is for the development of nuclear weapons. As far as I know, no one has provided concrete evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program.

If you want to take that chance that is fine. There is no doubt in most rational thinking people's mind that Iran is pursuing nukes.

[JMann]

You don't go to war over oil. It is morally wrong. If Iran wants to trade their oil in euros, tough shit, we have to figure out a way to get by without their oil.

It is morally wrong to allow western civilization to collapse over the lack of cheap oil.

[JMann]

The intel was manufactured from the get go. When that was revealed, they had to push something else....spreading 'democracy'. When that idea was failing with many in America they had to push something else.....Saddam was aiding and abbetting Al queda. All of it lies. As for WMDs, our gov't has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Hypocrites. And a crazy administration sitting near the red button. Actually, since 1913 we have had mostly crazy administrations....:eek:

Cheap oil? You think that's what this is about? Oil was $1.25/gallon right before 9/11, does that tell you anything? These wars haven't cheapened a damn thing, but have reaked havoc on our economy.

So you would rather the US not have nuclear weapons and Iran to have them? I don't get your point. It is a great thing that we have nuclear weapons and it is better for us to not allow barbarians to acquire them.

[jjschless]

It is morally wrong to allow western civilization to collapse over the lack of cheap oil.

LOL!! You should write for the Spoof. Great satire!

[SwordOfShannarah]

I've heard enough rhetoric to believe they would strike Iran (the neo-cons are out of their minds), but with how tired the American public is of war, I don't think Americans would stand for it.

thats why they moved troops to the capital

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[LibertyBelle]

So you would rather the US not have nuclear weapons and Iran to have them? I don't get your point. It is a great thing that we have nuclear weapons and it is better for us to not allow barbarians to acquire them.

When did I say that I would rather the US not have nuclear weapons and Iran have them? You twist things. Actually, the best thing would be for nobody to have nuclear weapons. Are you calling Iranians barbarians?

I think Cheney is a barbarian, and he sits next to that red button. Probably hugs it like a teddy bear when he goes to bed. I think certain Israeli leaders are barbarians, and they have a bunch of nuclear weapons. And so on.... There are individual barbarians all over the world, the US gov't is not exempt from having them.

[Bossobass]

If America weren't imprsoned in a time loop by the single monopoly of GM/Chase/Exxon, we wouldn't need the huge oceans of the shit we gobble up every single day.

The internal combustion gas-fired engined automobile, each with 4 rubber tires and a steering wheel, has been around, with nearly identically the same fuel efficiency FOR 100 YEARS.

I was very young back when my father was talking to a friend of his in the neighborhood who explained his carburetor modifications that enabled his cadillac to get 42 MPG. He told of burning out 3 engines, etc., as I recall. He sold his invention for what was quite a sum of money in the 60s and moved to the uppity burbs.

Who'd he sell it to? Yup, GM.

I've since heard many more stories like that one. I recently watched the vid, Who Killed The Electric Car? Again, yup...GM.

Back when, in Pittsburgh, where I grew up, there was a vast network of street cars. At Harris Terrace, near my home, there was a separate set of tracks for the street cars. No traffic jams. No accidents. The street cars ran on electric. No smoke. Zero emissions.

There was a powerful lobby that caused the government to incentivise the switch from that already existing situation to the crap bus system we have today. Yup, it was the GM (who built the buses) lobby. The Harris Terrace street car track lanes are trackless and abandoned, to this very day...a useless eyesore.

Rockefeller has us right where he wants us. Getting 23.1 MPG. Having only gasoline powered autos (save for VW's TDI autos and a single Mercedes model...and realize that a gallon of diesel fuel contains more energy than a gallon of gasoline), built by his largest-in-the-world auto manufacturing empire, financed by his banks and fueled by his refineries (the monopoly his granddaddy built by hook and crook more than a century ago).

My wife and I drive VW TDIs that get 52 and 48 MPG, respectively. They run on diesel and we make fuel from waste vegetable oil at a cost of approximately 70 cents per gallon. Every 3 MPG in average efficiency (of all cars) in America saves 1,000,000 barrels PER DAY.

There are several fledgling manufacturers of excellent electric cars, one of which goes 0-60 in 4 seconds. They have hundreds of parts less than the trad auto. Less noise. Less manitenance. ZERO emissions. Why do these manufacturers have such long waiting lists and high prices? No financing available to build proper manufacturing facilities with necessary stocks of parts, etc., etc.

Rocky and his lost century of wars, pollution, consolidations, brainwash and METEOCRITY in transportation can kiss my ass. I don't need his bullshit cars. I don't need his bank loan or credit card. I don't need his $4/gallon gas, and I don't need a gallon of fuel every time I drive 23.1 miles.

The Iran propaganda is just that. They pose no threat to the US. The NEVER WILL. They only pose a threat to Rockefeller. Oil has nothing to do with our National Security, cheap or otherwise. It's more bullshit from Exxon. Truth is that if oil were allowed to run in a free market competition and we Americans would get our heads outta our asses and build smart transportation, oil would be the rare word in a typical American conversation, and...cancer would not be the #1 killer of Americans.

Bosso

[LibertyEagle]

It is morally wrong to allow western civilization to collapse over the lack of cheap oil.

What makes you think they wouldn't sell their oil to us? :confused: It's about the only thing they have to sell. If they refused to sell their oil, their economy would go bust. That's the great thing about the free market.

What's more, the price of oil has gone through the roof since we invaded Iraq. If we wanted cheap oil, we should have stayed the heck out!

So instead, we invade Iraq and now it looks like we're going to invade Iran. For what?? In addition to increasing the price of oil, even more, it will likely start WWIII.

If you're worried about the collapse of western civilization, you should check out what is happening in our OWN country. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Executive Orders and Presidential Directives proclaiming dictator-like authority, our Constitution being flat out ignored, our debt over 9 TRILLION dollars. We are BROKE; our dollar is on the verge of collapsing and you sit here and think we should invade Iran?

Well, be my guest. Hop on the next plane. But, don't expect us to follow you over the cliff.

[LibertyBelle]

What makes you think they wouldn't sell their oil to us? :confused: It's about the only thing they have to sell. If they refused to sell their oil, their economy would go bust. That's the great thing about the free market.

What's more, the price of oil has gone through the roof since we invaded Iraq. If we wanted cheap oil, we should have stayed the heck out!

So instead, we invade Iraq and now it looks like we're going to invade Iran. For what?? In addition to increasing the price of oil, even more, it will likely start WWIII.

If you're worried about the collapse of western civilization, you should check out what is happening in our OWN country. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Executive Orders and Presidential Directives proclaiming dictator-like authority, our Constitution being flat out ignored, our debt over 9 TRILLION dollars. We are BROKE; our dollar is on the verge of collapsing and you sit here and think we should invade Iran?

Well, be my guest. Hop on the next plane. But, don't expect us to follow you over the cliff.

OUCH, I couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent my dear Watson, excellent!

[Johnnybags]

Its those damn blue haired elders FOX news is scaring to death. Are they really imperialists or do they think the Bush Regime deserves any respect? Is it because they believe the boob tube like its a sermon from Mt Sinai? They all vote too, and they will be voting for a charlatan unless we figure a way to jolt them out their ambien related trance.

[Hook]

It is morally wrong to allow western civilization to collapse over the lack of cheap oil.

We have a true neocon here! I think this guy would be more comfortable with the Ghoul.
So you are saying that you have the right to steal from anyone that doesn't sell something to you at the price you think should be charged? So when Wal-Mart won't sell you a pair of pants for 30 cents, you have the right to break down the front door, kill all the employees, and steal everything you want? Talk about not having your moral compass not pointing true north!
Maybe God himself is immoral for not providing a miracle to make perpetual oil available to western civilization.

[SeanEdwards]

Maybe God himself is immoral for not providing a miracle to make perpetual oil available to western civilization.

Damn right! Let's hang the bitch! :D

[Johnnybags]

terrorists so he already has the authorization, so he thinks to go bomb them, congress is not going to approve it unless we are directly and irrefutably attacked by Iran. So the chimp will construe he has tthe power legally after he dubbyas them terrorists. Congress should amend the so called war legislation immediately.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[DAZ]

We shouldn't have a standing army
If we used our CIA intelligence back in 2001, 9/11 wouldn't have ever happened.
What is the reasoning for a draft? If America is being invaded, you don't think it'd be incentive enough for people to want to volunteer? We never need a draft. Volunteers can be an indicator of public support.


I'm surprised nobody else takes exception to your first point. 150 years ago, I can at least sympathize if not totally agree. We were protected by two oceans from most possible enemies, and foreign invasion was pretty much not feasible for any nation that was actually a threat. Even then, I would still argue that at least a small core force was needed around which to build a larger army when circumstances required.

However, I think you are being a bit naive by arguing for the elimination of a standing army today. I assume by "standing army" you include other branches of the military as well. In an age when bombers can fly missions from Moscow to New York and back in a night, we need a standing military force ready and able to respond. You mention the likely large numbers of volunteers should we be attacked, but volunteers don't become trained soldiers, sailors, pilots, combat engineers, technicians, etc. overnight. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the existence of private military forces like Blackwater. Unless of course, you are the head of Blackwater. In that case, you're sitting pretty.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Kuldebar]

Saber Rattling! Must be nearing the month of October!


http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.01.07.SaberRattling-X.gif

It's that special time of the year when brinkmanship and bellicose expressions can ring out clearly in the autumn air!

[susano]

PLEASE SEE THIS - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=14654


Don't think this maniac wouldn't do it? Think again.

Is there ANYONE in government who will take these people out???

[comic_man]

Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves... that why they want to invade Iran...

The following explains the current white house mood on Iran....
http://comiqs.com/comics/FUctIrb3cmc/

[comic_man]

i believe Ron Paul's anti-war message is already making a difference. the bush administration is really afraid of him now!