Iran’s Supreme Leader: Jihad Will Continue Until America is No More

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I'm just a little confused by your post:

Seeing the NeoCons asking for war with Iran reminds me of Iraq how did Iraq turn out again?

I don't know of any national political figure saying we should go to war with Iran now. Who is saying it, people on this thread? That worries you?

If the US decided that it had to completely destroy Iran and it's nuclear program, that it was essential to do it, do you think the US would fail?

Believe it or not, we have congress men who truly believe that the US can win a first strike nuclear war on Russia, and they have documented their insanity in a draft. They are neocons (short for Neo-Conservatives) of the former Bush White House variety, who reveled in the Patriot Act and the two front war of the Middle East and the necessity of perpetual military conflict doctrine. These are the folks running the security and war agenda in America, leading the Republicans.

Just the opposite even congressman at this point are tired of Us playing world police. The war on terrorism has had a huge impact on them even McCain was calling for stronger sanctions but not once mentioned sending US troops to Ukraine.

McCain's diplomacy is not based on being tired of war. The US is ham strung economically by petroleum assets that cannot be militarily protected in the event of war. I've covered this in other posts in this thread and elsewhere.

a reply to: Gianfar

The US 5th fleet is based in the Persian gulf.

We do not have military forces in Saudia Arabia with the exception of some aircraft and support crews.
The base we used in the former SSR is done and the US pulled out.
US military forces are no longer in Iraq.

So I am not really sure why people want to continue using the "surrounded" argument. I am waiting for someone to post the "map" of the middle east showing "US bases". Whoever made the map is as clueless as Iran is.


Reference your comment about oil and the US. The top oil suppliers to the US are Canada and Venezuela. Then we move to African nations and finally the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia. The Us has an SPR that can last 2 years. The US navy has developed technology allowing naval vessels to be run with sea water, which will start rolling out over the next 10 years.

In terms of natural gas the US is now and exporter.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
The war mongers have always been here, they love it when a potential war is looming. It means they can get their beers in and watch the Shock and Awe from the comfort of their lazy boy sofas chanting USA USA, watching the 24hr rolling news of destruction and death from those impartial imbedded reporters, knowing full well the USA is safe and sound miles away from the events.

Warning strong language in song.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

I'd like to see how they could purchase food for their families and pay rent if their gas stations had to sell fuel for $8.00 dollars a gallon? The USA is not safe because the war is happening thousands of miles away?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: junglimogli

So you think the only reason the US didnt stop Russia is because it has nukes? Reality is Ukraine isnt worth that level of confrontation with Russia they never intended to deploy troops in Ukraine. So if there not going to send troops than that was the deciding limit to the involvement.It would have been incredibly easy to get Ukraine to invite US troops into the country but there isnt a reason to do so. Far more is accomplished through damaging there economy that a proxy war in Ukraine.

There is 'never a reason to do so' for the US because of the repercussions ..and yes, exactly, slice it any way you like ..the fact is when your adversary is equally armed to the teeth .. the excuses for ground operations fizzle away ..
The US in general wastes no time in walking over other nations, IF it can, and if there is something of value to steal.
I'm sure their economic assassins are already hard at work ..none of that matters really ..moving away from the dollar will solve a number of their problems in the long run..

a reply to: Xcathdra
Contractors are the wild cards. I know about a friend who is in Iraq.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar

The US 5th fleet is based in the Persian gulf.

We do not have military forces in Saudia Arabia with the exception of some aircraft and support crews.
The base we used in the former SSR is done and the US pulled out.
US military forces are no longer in Iraq.

So I am not really sure why people want to continue using the "surrounded" argument. I am waiting for someone to post the "map" of the middle east showing "US bases". Whoever made the map is as clueless as Iran is.


Reference your comment about oil and the US. The top oil suppliers to the US are Canada and Venezuela. Then we move to African nations and finally the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia. The Us has an SPR that can last 2 years. The US navy has developed technology allowing naval vessels to be run with sea water, which will start rolling out over the next 10 years.

In terms of natural gas the US is now and exporter.

Natural gas is decades coming. All oil supplies come from a world pool. Any threat to oil fields in the Middle East would effect the price of oil everywhere. Its that simple.

It's really interesting if you look into the history of conflict between the (darker but not always the case) Islamic people and the white (Roman Catholic Christian Europeans) - It goes really far back into history. For example: en.wikipedia.org... . The Crusades is another well known period.

Another article form a Christian perspective but illustrates the history: www.cbn.com...

I am not saying the situation with Iran is due to religion, however the vast history of conflict between these groups plays a huge role in setting the emotional backdrop.

From our modern perspective, it is a very primitive state of affairs.

I hope that human civilization can go beyond it.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Xcathdra
Contractors are the wild cards. I know about a friend who is in Iraq.

Fair point..

Personally I believe there is a difference since they are not covered under status of forces agreements and operate outside the military chain of command.

a reply to: Gianfar

Natural gas, thanks to fracking and new technology, is already here in the US. The current agenda is to construct / develop the export facilities needed to sustain a reliable export flow. Europe is taking a look at their laws / environmental impact on fracking as well. They are also developing off shore storage facilities for gas.

The US imports oil from the list I provided.

not all oil goes into a world pool, as Iran discovered. India and China bought Iranian oil during the sanctions that came directly from Iran and not a world pool.

As for the Middle East absolutely. Its one of the reasons the US has been looking for replacement energy sources tor educe dependence on oil from the middle east because of how volatile it is.

Contrary to popular belief the US presence in the middle east has to do with ensuring oil exports can leave the area with out issues.

While some may argue the ME would be quieter if the US left, I think we would see an opposite effect. I think nations like Iran would be a bit more aggressive towards its neighbors as well.

If research keeps going the way it is the ME will become low on the list of exporters. Australia is a prime example where they located oil fields worth an estimated 20 trillion dollars.

a reply to: Xcathdra

We sure do have a presence in Iraq. We have military there guarding that giant embassy and military on Iraqi bases, but lets not forget, we have contractors there. Too boot, we also arm the Iraqi military from bullets to rockets for their helicopter gun ships.

Makes sense since Iraq is constantly under attack from terrorists. In fact, don't be surprised if the US military, or any foreign military, engages in missions once again.

a reply to: Swills

All US embassies / Consulates are protected by either US Marines or the Diplomatic Security Services.

A contingent from an embassy does not post a threat to another country. If it did we would have booted the USSR's embassy to the street since they stationed military contingencies in their embassies as well.

Point being the US does not have Iran "surrounded". What I find funny is the same excuse was raised for the Russia Ukraine invasion. I chuckled because people were arguing the US has Russia "surrounded".

I'm not sure what's worse...
Making a claim that cant be supported by facts or making a claim that does not take into account the small things, like sovereign nations bordering Russia who are allied with them.

As we saw with Russia and those people supporting Russia they had no issues when Russia told them that military maneuvers inside their own borders are no one elses concern.

A somewhat valid point that loses all credibility when Russia then turns around and demands to know why NATO forces are being shifted around.

The same holds for US forces. We are free, as is iran and Syria, to work with our allies and station assets on their territory with their permission. Those actions are no concern of Russia, Iran or Syrias.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's a giant embassy with lots of military, civilians, and contractors. Although, who knows how much longer it will be around if the terrorists continue to destroy Iraq. Like I said, we also have our military on Iraqi bases. Sure they're not going on missions and are there strictly to oversee the contractors, or as some like to call them, mercenaries. More and more contractors flock to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda.

The American/Western presence is strong in Iraq.

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with everything you have been saying. The problem is, the apologists want to redirect the blame back to big bad America. Poor Iran is getting bullied by the US...sickening. There is a reason why we are watching Iran's nuclear program like a hawk. They are cowards who would never stand up to a fair fight. Their treatment of women proves that. However, what if these monsters got their hands on a Nuke? Now, that would be just their game indeed. The mass slaughter of thousands of evil American women and children through a cowardly proxy group.

If IRAN ever tried to drop a dirty bomb on the USA, we would have dropped kilotons of JDAM directly on top of them before they could even get the missile out of the silo.

USA is so farther advanced in military science, that it would be like a piss-ant trying to fight a human exterminator, who's job it is to destroy piss-ants.

I'm not concerned with IRAN dropping a bomb on the US, I'm not concerned with their coward jihaddists, I'm not concerned with what Israel has to say about the situation.

Nothing any country in the ME does is concerning to me. Maybe the rest of you forgot, but there is a REASON the USA is a super power. Just like there is a REASON Iran doesn't have much save for dirt and sand.

a reply to: Vortiki

FINALLY, a man with cajones.

originally posted by: Gianfar




I'd like to see how they could purchase food for their families and pay rent if their gas stations had to sell fuel for $8.00 dollars a gallon? The USA is not safe because the war is happening thousands of miles away?

Gas isn't a problem. Fuel isn't an issue. The USA doesn't need to rely on anyone for fuel, we merely provide the facade that it's relevant. We have more than enough fuel, for more than longer than we need it for. USA is the isolationism KING. We did it in the 1950's, and our economy boomed. When necessary, we don't need to import fuels and goods.

In case you didn't notice about a month ago, USA Navy just announced it can separate the oxygen from hydrogen in H2O and create combustible fuel from water. So no, gas prices aren't an issue, even more so if you own an electric vehicle.

Nothing any ME country can do can have the slightest bearing on the USA as a whole.

Sure you can say 9/11, but it isn't like that was a high number of fatalities compared to those out of the ME.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Vortiki

FINALLY, a man with cajones.

I'm just capable of being realistic. Who's going to win in a fight, a bunch of well armed, well trained soldiers, or a bunch of religious nut jobs whom farm dirt and who's only form of training comes from the crap we decided to pass down to them anyways. Ten year old combat techniques.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Got anything besides propaganda sites to back up your statements? WND is nothing but a propaganda site that used to be banned on this site and the Associated Press is a known Israeli propaganda site.
The IAEA did have access to those sites but Iran's parliament refused to implement the additional protocols in 06 when the UN security counsel imposed sanctions on Iran.
IAEA Chief Warns On Iran Nuke Inspections; ‘More Remains To Be Done:’ Exclusive

Amano said the main problem going forward is that Iran refuses to implement an Additional Protocol that would allow inspections of sites beyond those where the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency knows nuclear material is used or stored. This protocol is the key to making more rapid progress in verifying the peaceful or military nature of Iran’s nuclear work. “The implementation of the Additional Protocol is very important to provide assurance that all nuclear activity in Iran is for a peaceful purpose but we are not yet at that point. . . . We are at an early stage of clarifying and resolving the issues,” he said. Iran had applied the Additional Protocol in the early days of the crisis that began in 2002 when Iran was discovered to have hidden almost two decades of nuclear work. Iran has signed the Additional Protocol but its parliament has not ratified the measure. Iran stopped applying the protocol when the United Nations Security Council began to move in 2006 to imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Sanctions from the United Nations and individual countries now target Iran’s oil trade and ability to do business abroad, severely hurting the Iranian economy.

Also the CIA and Mossad both agree Iran isn't building nukes.
'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'

Israel’s intelligence services agree with American intelligence assessments that there is not enough proof to determine whether Iran is building a nuclear bomb, according to a report published Sunday in the New York Times. The newspaper said that senior American officials believe there is little disagreement between the Mossad and U.S. intelligence agencies over Iran’s nuclear program, despite the fact that Israeli political leaders have been pushing for quick action to block Iran from becoming what they describe as an existential threat.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: BobAthome


quote "that in 53 we staged" sorry wasn't around till 55,,
lets focus and keep it more upto date,,
lots of reasons in this day and age to be disheartened by Iran progress into a kinder gently world.
unless u think the sins of past generations are carried onto the young and innocent, and yet unborn?



a reply to: buster2010

Never hurts to learn a little history. When it comes to America and Iran America struck first.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: BobAthome


quote "that in 53 we staged" sorry wasn't around till 55,,
lets focus and keep it more upto date,,
lots of reasons in this day and age to be disheartened by Iran progress into a kinder gently world.
unless u think the sins of past generations are carried onto the young and innocent, and yet unborn?



a reply to: buster2010

Never hurts to learn a little history. When it comes to America and Iran America struck first.

WHAT???u never heard of turn the other cheek?

Ruhollah Khomeini



ya history ,, now it has pictures and quotes,, gotta love real history.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: FlyersFan

American politicians have their own version of retarded going on and should be dealt with as well. In this case I am trying to figure out if the Ayatollah has -

A - lost touch with his mental faculties.
B - Thinks he is invincible based on the nuclear agreement he is trying to undermine.
C - Is trying to pacify the Iranian people by shifting focus.... again to something external.
D - Thinks Russia / China will have his back and protect them.

There's also the other explanation.

E - He is exactly what it says on the box. A fanatic religious fundamentalist and near-dictator of a country, and who has an intrinsic, ideological, internally-driven hatred and is leading his country to act on it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Point being the US does not have Iran "surrounded". What I find funny is the same excuse was raised for the Russia Ukraine invasion. I chuckled because people were arguing the US has Russia "surrounded".

You are right we don't have them surrounded.



We haven't got all to the north of Iran covered.