Iran wasn't mentioned in the last 2 debates, what's changed?

[civusamericanus]

In the last 2 debates, they have not mentioned Iran. Heck, has their been a bunch of Iranian suicide bombers or has Ahmadinejad publicly ordered strikes against our troops? Where's the evidence, since if they have any, we would have attacked Iran a long time ago. Why Else would we surround them?

http://www.liraspg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/American-troops-around-Iran.png

[Savoyard]

Iran is still supporting friendly groups in neighboring countries (For good reasons, the other groups are quite hostile). All this "Providing weapons to the Taliban" is simply not truthful.

[sailingaway]

Nonintervention is popular in New Hampshire, but Fox doesn't like it. Ron would be cheered there. Noninterventionism has downsides in Iowa, politically.

[showpan]

it's a classic neocon fear mongering strategy to distract from discussion that other candidates have no clue.

[HarryBrowneLives]

What changed??? Ron's poll numbers have jumped since the last Faux debate in SC. The Faux Channel had the debate again. They're grabbing at anything they think might trip him up. Ex: What do you think about the economy (all others)? Mr. Paul: Why would you have nuns on heroin, let Iran have a nuke, and when did you stop beating Carol???:rolleyes:

[r3volution]

What changed??? Ron's poll numbers have jumped since the last Faux debate in SC. The Faux Channel had the debate again. They're grabbing at anything they think might trip him up. Ex: What do you think about the economy (all others)? Mr. Paul: Why would you have nuns on heroin, let Iran have a nuke, and when did you stop beating Carol???:rolleyes:

yep , i could not believe they did not give a "got ya" question to Paul earlier in the debate but as soon as i heard the iran question i thought to myself - there it is ...

[specsaregood]

Well Ahmadinejad did ask the UN to step in and stop the UK from using violence on their protestors.

[flightlesskiwi]

Well Ahmadinejad did ask the UN to step in and stop the UK from using violence on their protestors.

qft...

notice NOTHING was said about Libya, Yemen or Syria. only Ron mentioned them (minus syria) in passing ("6th war").

[libertybrewcity]

They can't just ask the same questions at every single debate. People would get bored, and the media wouldn't cover it as much. They need to talk about different issues to keep the masses interested.

[dusman]

OP, I'm glad you posted a map of the area. It is important to review in order to understand what is going on.

I'm hoping to bring some insight here. I trained extensively in missile defense for Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, etc. I am familiar with just about all of the Iranian military capabilities and I'll try my best to explain this map, and what is going on.

First and foremost, as you can see with this map, we've fulfilled a major objective over the past decade. Iran is entirely surrounded by our presence. What's not revealed is that Uzbekistan up north of this absolutely the catalyst to Western domination of oil distribution with the east. We have already secretly deployed troops here and established ourselves militarily to deploy from this location. In fact, after 9/11 the first country that Bush mentioned invading was Uzbekistan. They scrapped that idea, because it was too revealing of the intent.

The point is, there is no way China can build a pipeline 5,000 miles over the mountain ranges throughout this area, especially through Afghanistan. The only possible routes are through Uzbekistan or through Pakistan in order to get into major oil distribution networks. Since we have this entire area secured, we will start seeing oil pipelines traversing north from Pakistan, all the way through to Uzbekistan. Once this is complete, the entire East will be dependent on this network for oil demands. This is how the U.S. will establish their super-global power status. This agenda is detailed very well by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, "The Grand Chessboard". I encourage all Americans read this book or simply jump to Youtube and watch Michael Ruppert's overview of The Grand Chessboard.

Here is why Ron Paul is absolutely right.

First and foremost... aside from the Revolutionary Guards, Iran poses very little threat to the United States, or even Israel. They will not tell you this, because they are using psyops to propagate the Iranian nation as the enemy. Most Iranians, as a people, are anti-Israel but pro-American. It's a very odd conundrum. However, not to worry.. this entire area is probably the most well defended skies on the planet. Not one missile or aircraft will ever pass through these skies, unless deliberate... as I speculate this whole situation and keep thinking of potential false-flag means to initiate war. If we followed this train of logic throughout the world.. we'd need to be in 170+ countries with our military presence, in order to suppress any potential competing ideologies or threats to our demand for natural resources.

It's a shame I wish I were joking. We are already there and ultimately your proof as the American people what the agenda is.

This is why the discussion Ron Paul raised in the debate is extremely important. He raises the serious need for a voice in opposition of this agenda. We obviously see no one else willing to stand against it.

This is the conclusion... the only reason Iran is a threat, can be seen in the map above. Think about the 1953 overthrow and why it happened. It happened because they tried to nationalize the oil supply, against the British Empire.. and we infiltrated their nation and put in place the Sha. If they would have been successful, it would have allowed the East to have advantage in Eurasia.. in direct threat to U.S. dominance in the World. The threat raises due to the fact that our foreign policy is CENTRALIZED around the idea of controlling Eurasia natural resources. If we implement an oil distribution network in between the Middle East and the East... we dominate the world and can cripple not only the East (including Russia), but also Africa and ultimately Europe.

One world government anyone? Or should I say "Globalism".

[Justinjj1]

+ rep Dusman

great post

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The economy got shocked by S&P so now we have to ramp up some more war propaganda for the masses.

[flightlesskiwi]

OP, I'm glad you posted a map of the area. It is important to review in order to understand what is going on.

I'm hoping to bring some insight here. I trained extensively in missile defense for Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, etc. I am familiar with just about all of the Iranian military capabilities and I'll try my best to explain this map, and what is going on.

First and foremost, as you can see with this map, we've fulfilled a major objective over the past decade. Iran is entirely surrounded by our presence. What's not revealed is that Uzbekistan up north of this absolutely the catalyst to Western domination of oil distribution with the east. We have already secretly deployed troops here and established ourselves militarily to deploy from this location. In fact, after 9/11 the first country that Bush mentioned invading was Uzbekistan. They scrapped that idea, because it was too revealing of the intent.

The point is, there is no way China can build a pipeline 5,000 miles over the mountain ranges throughout this area, especially through Afghanistan. The only possible routes are through Uzbekistan or through Pakistan in order to get into major oil distribution networks. Since we have this entire area secured, we will start seeing oil pipelines traversing north from Pakistan, all the way through to Uzbekistan. Once this is complete, the entire East will be dependent on this network for oil demands. This is how the U.S. will establish their super-global power status. This agenda is detailed very well by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, "The Grand Chessboard". I encourage all Americans read this book or simply jump to Youtube and watch Michael Ruppert's overview of The Grand Chessboard.

Here is why Ron Paul is absolutely right.

First and foremost... aside from the Revolutionary Guards, Iran poses very little threat to the United States, or even Israel. They will not tell you this, because they are using psyops to propagate the Iranian nation as the enemy. Most Iranians, as a people, are anti-Israel but pro-American. It's a very odd conundrum. However, not to worry.. this entire area is probably the most well defended skies on the planet. Not one missile or aircraft will ever pass through these skies, unless deliberate... as I speculate this whole situation and keep thinking of potential false-flag means to initiate war. If we followed this train of logic throughout the world.. we'd need to be in 170+ countries with our military presence, in order to suppress any potential competing ideologies or threats to our demand for natural resources.

It's a shame I wish I were joking. We are already there and ultimately your proof as the American people what the agenda is.

This is why the discussion Ron Paul raised in the debate is extremely important. He raises the serious need for a voice in opposition of this agenda. We obviously see no one else willing to stand against it.

This is the conclusion... the only reason Iran is a threat, can be seen in the map above. Think about the 1953 overthrow and why it happened. It happened because they tried to nationalize the oil supply, against the British Empire.. and we infiltrated their nation and put in place the Sha. If they would have been successful, it would have allowed the East to have advantage in Eurasia.. in direct threat to U.S. dominance in the World. The threat raises due to the fact that our foreign policy is CENTRALIZED around the idea of controlling Eurasia natural resources. If we implement an oil distribution network in between the Middle East and the East... we dominate the world and can cripple not only the East (including Russia), but also Africa and ultimately Europe.

One world government anyone? Or should I say "Globalism".

thanks for this great post!

Uzbekistan is absolutely crucial. does anyone remember in 2005 when the Uzbek government asked us to withdraw our presence? it's no secret we had an air base there--- supposedly for operations in Afghanistan. anyway, i'd completely forgotten about this until the above commentary. apparently, the US struck a "deal" with Uzbekistan by way of South Korea in order to allow for non-lethal NATO cargo shipments into Afghanistan. not that this means much, but a foot in the door, especially one that appears legitimate to the local population, is all the US needs. i wonder how much $$ we are giving Korea Air to deliver those NATO non-lethal cargo packages.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch-Archive/Detail/?ots591=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4&lng=en&id=100079

i always wondered what was going on in Uzbekistan. thanks for clarifying.

[dusman]

If you dig deeper into the Uzbekistan story, you'll find random stories across the net, that are really interesting. These detail massive US paratrooping missions, being conducted in October 2001.. very very close to the same time we moved into Afghanistan.

I'm trying to double check all my points. It is difficult to get through all the screened/canned information, but this debate has made me come back to the topic of Iran and update myself on what's been going on. I might be slightly off, as I believe they failed in reaching an agreement to start on this oil distribution pipeline from the Indian ocean. I keep coming back to the "Iranian Revolution" of last year. It seems to me, an overthrow failed. If this is the case, I can only assume that means more pressure on this foreign policy to deliver.

If there was a failed agreement.. then an Iranian Revolution which failed an overthrow.. and the timing of this hyped nuclear threat now - it seems an alternative agenda has formed from my original assessment here at least. My knowledge would be about 2 years old right now.. so alot can change.

Nonetheless, superiority in the region should not be questioned.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9QiL2p0dk