Iran...are they next???

[bostonlass]

I'm watching a special on Fox news about Iran and nuclear weapons. Lately it seems, to me anyway, that Iran has been getting a lot of exposure...moreso than North Korea. Does anyone think they're the next to be targeted and if so would you support the effort?

 

[Servus Iesu]

Lord, I hope not. Why should I care if Iran has nuclear weapons when I am being systematically stripped of my rights right here in America? I fear the terrorists in black robes far more than I fear any of the terrorists with explosives.

 

[bostonlass]

Well I hope not either but it seems from this particular show that it may be sooner than we all think.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Well I hope not either but it seems from this particular show that it may be sooner than we all think.

I wouldn't be surprised. We need continual warfare to distract people from the real problems this country has.

 

[bostonlass]

I wouldn't be surprised. We need continual warfare to distract people from the real problems this country has.

We've had so many casualties on both sides of the Iraqi war already.

 

[skatepixie]

I watched the special too. If this new president there really is the terrorist the former hostages think he is...then I would support an operation there. I think that we might be able to do a lot with diplomacy...and there are ways to target their nuke ability with just smart bombs...no need to put troops in harms way.

The thing is...there is always things the public doesnt know for security reasons...so I will let the president and his advisors make whatever choice they need to make.

 

[King of the Nations]

There are certain questions you just really want to be careful about asking because sometimes you end up getting a response to them...

The thing is...there is always things the public doesnt know for security reasons...so I will let the president and his advisors make whatever choice they need to make.

There are things the public doesn't know for much more nefarious reasons as well...

Yes, I think Iran may indeed be next and this is something that we really need to pray about, peeps. Things in the international (and national) world of politics are often not as they seem. Feel free to call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I've seen too much to trust that this election was anything but the work of the CIA. That may sound absolutely absurd at first, but when you come to understand how the CIA operates...

To put it very simply, if you're not yet aware of the fact, the world is running out of oil....Like, as in.....No more. Period. End of story.....Not "temporarily out of order", permanently and irrevokably dry. The best estimates are that we will run completely dry in another three or four decades.

That may at first seem like plenty of time to prepare and to switch over to other types of energy, but it isn't. The situation is far more dramatic than that insofar as long before that time when the wells run dry, estimates are anywhere from another year to four years from now, world demand for oil will excede production. The world will require more oil than it is capable of producing....

Stop and munch on that for just a moment....

In the meantime, guess who needs desparately to go around and secure the world's remaining oil resources, the majority of which are in the Middle East, so that, as other countries begin to experience more and more brown and black outs and eventually run out of power altogether, she can continue to operate smoothly???........But, of course, the United States of America, righteous entity that it is, can't just go around taking over countries to ensure its own continued oil flow "just because". That would be rather "barbaric", not to mention counter-productive to national security for reasons that should be obvious. So, instead, we need a plan....What to do? What to do?....Hmmmm...I know! Let's create something called "radical Islam" and sponsor a bunch of folks to launch direct attacks and make threats toward the U.S.. Then who could blame us for wanting to go in and turn these places into parking lots for our armored vehicles, huh?

The election of the yahoo in Iran was bought and paid for by CIA. That may seem to some to be an audacious statement to make but I'm telling you...

Suffice it to say that at least on a spiritual level, the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Any invasion of Iran would be disastrous. If we do go in to Iran, look for a large asymmetric response and, I would be willing to bet, even direct military intervention on the part of Russia and China.

Pray, pray, pray, dear friends, that no war on Iran be launched, and protest the idea in any way you can and be ready for all kinds of manufactured claims about Iran being a national security threat. The CIA will provide you with all the "proof" you need, even as the Titanic takes a direct hit and begins taking on water...



Anyone still wondering if and why Our Lady has been appearing in Medjugorje for the past 24 years telling us to prepare???

Greg

 

[skatepixie]

Ah yes...and could you introduce me to big foot? Did you find those Crumple-Horned Snorkacks you have been looking for?

 

[King of the Nations]

You think I jest...

Greg

 

[Auntie]

...........biodiesel............ ​

 

[selfintercession]

Iran is a lot more open about what they're doing... and they're very open to diplomacy in most areas. This is unlike Iraq who's leader as we all remember didn't want anything to do with diplomacy and actually enjoyed taunting the US and the rest of the world.

Contrary to what the media likes to show a lot of the time, Iran is actually very democratic as opposed to the rest of that area as I understand it, and they have some big helpers to: Russia is still helping them with their nuclear energy program to this day. Bush knows that not only is there no immediate reason to go in, but they would be hard-pressed to fight a war against Iran (who's military is hugely stronger than Iraq's) and it's allies while still fighting in Iraq... not to mention the PR nightmare. I don't see it happening with Iran... at least not anytime soon.

 

[bostonlass]

In the meantime, guess who needs desparately to go around and secure the world's remaining oil resources, the majority of which are in the Middle East, so that, as other countries begin to experience more and more brown and black outs and eventually run out of power altogether, she can continue to operate smoothly???........But, of course, the United States of America, righteous entity that it is, can't just go around taking over countries to ensure its own continued oil flow "just because". That would be rather "barbaric", not to mention counter-productive to national security for reasons that should be obvious. So, instead, we need a plan....What to do? What to do?....Hmmmm...I know! Let's create something called "radical Islam" and sponsor a bunch of folks to launch direct attacks and make threats toward the U.S.. Then who could blame us for wanting to go in and turn these places into parking lots for our armored vehicles, huh?

Thing that doesn't make sense about this is that if the US intended on doing this in Iraq, wouldn't they have realized long ago that their plan backfired due to the insurgents? Why would they be in such a rush to do it again in Iran? Not only is Iraq not exporting tons of oil, they actually have to IMPORT it due to the insurgents. I would venture a guess that this would be the case in Iran if we were to go in there.

Either we have the biggest bunch of yahoo's in office or the situation is exactly as it's being portrayed. On the surface, the nuclear threat is to Israel, Germany and France, and quite frankly my opinion would be to let them all work it out on their own and leave us the heck out of it. We can work on getting our own fuel elsewhere or within our own boundaries and meanwhile invent alternative forms of energy. Let Israel, France and Germany fight their own battles for once.

 

[Irenaeus]

Wahabbi Islam...

I just fear it in my bones.

 

[King of the Nations]

Thing that doesn't make sense about this is that if the US intended on doing this in Iraq, wouldn't they have realized long ago that their plan backfired due to the insurgents? Why would they be in such a rush to do it again in Iran?

Because a hydra has many heads, for one thing, and not all the heads always work in perfect concert with each other.

That's the short and "sweet" answer. It's not as if every federal agency and compartment within each of those agencies got everyone together and said, "Ok, let's make sure we're all on the same page here. Here's our real geostrategic global plan that we need everyone to follow along page by page on..."

Logistical issues aside, obviously this would hit a quick snag in the form of those who serve in public office and still have strong consciences.

Not only is Iraq not exporting tons of oil, they actually have to IMPORT it due to the insurgents.

1) Where did you hear that from?

2) Iraq was actually likely a "stray bullet", if you know what I mean.

Either we have the biggest bunch of yahoo's in office or the situation is exactly as it's being portrayed.

Or...As was suggested above, we have a "mixed group" in office, some of who are of high virtue, others of whom appear to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and a collection of federal agencies, compartments of which are pursuing similar ends but separately and, therefore, are not doing so as seemlessly as many of them would like.

It's complicated...

On the surface, the nuclear threat is to Israel, Germany and France, and quite frankly my opinion would be to let them all work it out on their own and leave us the heck out of it. We can work on getting our own fuel elsewhere or within our own boundaries and meanwhile invent alternative forms of energy. Let Israel, France and Germany fight their own battles for once.

Too little, most likely too late on the alternative forms of energy. Our world is still much too dependant on oil to exist (not just in the form of gasoline, for example, but also plastic and other "essentials") and, demand, therefore, is expected to overcome supply in just another year to four years. Remember the mysterious blackouts that took place in stages all across the western world a couple years ago?...(Let him who has eyes to see and ears to hear... )

With God, all things are possible, but without Him, it's too little, too late...

Greg

 

[InnerPhyre]

Iran should have been attacked in the first place, not Iraq. Iran clearly sponsored the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and they have a much greater history of violence toward us than Iraq did. So now instead of attacking them and worrying about Iraq as a secondary threat, we attack Iraq, lose the support of the world, and lose whatever hope we might have had at getting a decent coalition to attack those who are truly dangerous.

 

[bostonlass]

1) Where did you hear that from?

The link to the article is on my computer at work but just googled it and found this: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/business/?id=13556 . The article I originally read was I think from BBC online and it was talking about a specific town's lack of running water and lack of power and then went on to broadly talk of Iraq and the fact that each time they think they can finally live on their own oil an insurgency demolishes another refinery.

2) Iraq was actually likely a "stray bullet", if you know what I mean.

Unfortunately I know NOW what you mean but back when we were still deciding I was gung ho like the rest of conservative US.

Too little, most likely too late on the alternative forms of energy. Our world is still much too dependant on oil to exist (not just in the form of gasoline, for example, but also plastic and other "essentials") and, demand, therefore, is expected to overcome supply in just another year to four years. Remember the mysterious blackouts that took place in stages all across the western world a couple years ago?...(Let him who has eyes to see and ears to hear... )

I don't remember those blackouts but I do remember the one in NYC and lemme tell you if people don't think that was terrorism I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

 

[Jay2004]

Wahabbi Islam...

I just fear it in my bones

Wahabbi is a fantatical sect of Islam descended from Sunni Islam. It comes from and still has a very large following in Saudi Arabia.
Iran is a Shiite country, but it's leaders are nothing but power hungry. Iran is the country who supplying the Iraq insurgents. If the US was to attack Iran, I would not blame them. All the 3rd world countries and liberals in Europe and Canada would be against it. (Just like they protested the war on Iraq) Where were those liberal protesters when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Hypocrites I say. Most Iraqis that live in Ottawa were in favour of the war in Iraq.

The United Nations are a bunch of hypocrites (ie. Syria and Lybia were on the Human rights commitee)

But you know what, don't be surprised if you see Isreal attack Iran's nuclear facilities (just like they did to Iraq's in the 80's)

 

[King of the Nations]

Iran is a lot more open about what they're doing... and they're very open to diplomacy in most areas. This is unlike Iraq who's leader as we all remember didn't want anything to do with diplomacy and actually enjoyed taunting the US and the rest of the world.

Contrary to what the media likes to show a lot of the time, Iran is actually very democratic as opposed to the rest of that area as I understand it,

Meant to mention earlier that this is part of the reason I'm convinced the election was fraudulent. Either that or the new Pres. isn't the madman that a certain few are painting him to be...

Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

Iran should have been attacked in the first place, not Iraq. Iran clearly sponsored the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and they have a much greater history of violence toward us than Iraq did. So now instead of attacking them and worrying about Iraq as a secondary threat, we attack Iraq, lose the support of the world, and lose whatever hope we might have had at getting a decent coalition to attack those who are truly dangerous.

Be careful...What's the expression? Believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you read?

Welcome back, by the way...

Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

Unfortunately I know NOW what you mean but back when we were still deciding I was gung ho like the rest of conservative US.

Exactly what the "powers-that-be" were counting on...

I don't remember those blackouts but I do remember the one in NYC and lemme tell you if people don't think that was terrorism I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

You know, that was my response at first too. Especially when officials were denying it was terrorism within minutes of the lights going out! I was like, ..."It's been THREE MINUTES since the power went out and you're telling us that you have no idea whatsoever of why the power went out but you know for a fact it isn't terrorism..." "Somebody needs to pass that script by the editor first next time, guys..."

However, I've since come to see things in a new light. Yes, there was New York. And then some other parts of the East Caost, including Canada. And then Britain. And then part of Germany. And then France. And then...It just kept going and going over about a three week period or so, lights out here, lights out there, lights out nearly everywhere in the western world... Definitely made me wonder.

Then I started finding out some rather "interesting", if morbid, facts about the state of the world's energy resources...Houston, we definitely have a problem...

Pray, pray , pray...

Greg