Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Let's see - the neocons want to "attack Iran" but not "build a fence"

  1. #1

    Let's see - the neocons want to "attack Iran" but not "build a fence"

    Because building a border fence would be too expensive and not workable they say.

    Like in Israel and East Germany.

    But a war on Iran would only cost HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS from the US tax base, drive oil prices up to the point only the very rich could drive even a hybrid and has no rational purpose, objective or exit strategy - just like Iraq.

    How much sense does that make?


    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion."
    - Thomas Jefferson

    WATCH: The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

    READ: Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time - Carroll Quigley



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    This is the main issue where I hook all neo-cons.

    They have no logical explaination.

    AND it makes them think.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by ChooseLiberty View Post
    Because building a border fence would be too expensive and not workable they say.

    Like in Israel and East Germany.

    But a war on Iran would only cost HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS from the US tax base, drive oil prices up to the point only the very rich could drive even a hybrid and has no rational purpose, objective or exit strategy - just like Iraq.

    How much sense does that make?
    Due, we shouldn't build a fence NOR should we attack Iran. Fences can keep people in, too...
    We elect our own oppressors.

  5. #4
    Add to that they want to SPY ON US, restrict our travel, give up our civil liberties and NOT build a fence. ????????

  6. #5
    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/World_War_IV_The_Long_Struggle_Against_Islamofasci sm/

    Podhoretz tries to show that because neither Japan or Germany managed to inflict any harm on American soil, while terrorists did, that the terrorists are as formidable if not more so than the axis powers during World War II. He then states that generals made as many mistakes during that war as Bush has made in Iraq—all quite to be expected really. And if we don’t continue attacking and overthrowing the entire rogue states that support terror, America will be brutally attacked in the future.

    There are several reasons why I doubt this will happen. First, we could easily close our open borders and not let in anyone with a terrorist profile, along with ejecting any that are already here. The greatest suffering may well be to isolate Semites, Persians, and any other ethnic group that threatens us—especially if Europe does likewise.

    Second, it has been shown that we were not concerned about terrorism until 9/11, and even though we have not mobilized to truly route out terrorists in our midst, we have been catching them quite easily before they can strike. These are not very smart people, they make numerous errors, and they spend far too much time reading Islamic books instead of science books. They are so incredibly inept that the only way they can harm us is due to our self-destructive egalitarianism.

    I have no doubt that a policing action would have been far more effective, less costly in lives and money, and the terrorist problem would have been no more serious than dealing with organized crime. I am also convinced that the neocons kept a policing action under tight wraps because it would have made America safe but Israel still very vulnerable. Their goal is to neutralize all of their potential enemies, so that should the day come that Americans tire of propping up their government while it increasingly is compared to South Africa’s apartheid state, they can continue to marginalize the Palestinians and deny them their own state.

    As for weapons of mass destruction, they are extremely difficult to make, deliver with accuracy, and remain undetected. I’m certain that our ability to detect nuclear material could be in place far in advance of any backward state’s ability to develop a useable weapon. And even if they did hit the United States with a rather brutal attack of some sorts, in the end it would be a benefit. Unless we have succumbed completely to socialism by then, with its hyper concern over moral issues and the oppressed, we would retaliate by invading their country and keeping it, along with the oil or any other assets they may have. [My only criticism of his analysis is that he ignores the possibility/problem of False Flag terrorism]
    I've often wondered why the NeoCohens get so worked up over an enemy that collectively has an IQ around 85 that would have a hard time engineering a decent refrigerator. On the other hand, the current US "Invade the world, invite the world" strategy is an effective one -- for Zionists and their authoritarian minions.
    Last edited by johngr; 10-10-2007 at 01:32 AM.

  7. #6
    Classic disinfo technique of once in a great while telling the truth through a radicalized far left controlled opposition mouthpiece. It tends to discredit the truth:


    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/...-bush-meeting/

    Norman Podhoretz, the “patriarch of neoconservatism,” recently published a book entitled “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism,” staunchly supporting the Iraq war and pushing for war with Iran. In June, Podhoretz published a controversial piece in Commentary magazine titled “The Case for Bombing Iran.”

    The Politico reports today that President Bush has been listening to Podhoretz’s radical agenda, recently enlisting Podhoretz to discuss his views on Iran. In a meeting that “was not on the president’s public schedule,” Bush and Karl Rove “sat listening to Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House”:

    Rove was silent throughout, though he took notes. The president listened diligently, Podhoretz said as he recounted the conversation months later, but he “didn’t tip his hand.”

    “I did say to [the president], that people ask: Why are you spending all this time negotiating sanctions? Time is passing. I said, my friend [Robert] Kagan wrote a column which he said you were giving ‘futility its chance.’ And both he and Karl Rove burst out laughing.

    “It struck me,” Podhoretz added, “that if they really believed that there was a chance for these negotiations and sanctions to work, they would not have laughed. They would have got their backs up and said, ‘No, no, it’s not futile, there’s a very good chance.’”

    President Bush has loyally supported Podhoretz’s agenda in the past. In 2004, he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — on Podhoretz, calling him a “fierce intellectual man” with “fine writing and a “great love for our country.”

    Today, Podhoretz’s calls for bombing Iran are being echoed in the administration. According to Newsweek, Vice President Cheney considered a plan to allow Israel to conduct missile strikes against Iran “in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.”

    Podhoretz has argued that “if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will…we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.” By enlisting Podhoretz’s advice, President Bush is demonstrating that there isn’t any idea too radical for him to consider.
    Last edited by johngr; 10-10-2007 at 01:42 AM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Triton View Post
    Fences can keep people in, too...
    Very important point.

    "I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date"

    http://RonPaulIsHope.com





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-03-2015, 09:28 PM
  2. Canadians: "Build a D--n Fence!"
    By cavalier973 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-06-2011, 03:06 PM
  3. McCain Thugs Booted "Build The Fence" Signage
    By angelatc in forum GOP Convention
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 10:24 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2007, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •