Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'

this is a huge problem, we need to bring back the will of the people. It's seemed in the past it was all about the people and uniting people-The will the hipiies and the counter-culture had. that's the will needed. revolution.

reply to post by kdial1

the us has no business in Iran. its like bush was paid by a private party to their dirty work for them, using our army. cant wait till hes out of office, what more can he ruin

the US will probably get nuked at some point. That is simply a reality. They will most probably strike major port cities around the US, and close allies. This is because it will cause major distruption to the economy, and bring it down completely. The nukes will be brought over on ships.

Originally posted by USMC-oorah

Your cousin is a very good man who deserves alot of respect. Whether, or not the war is right, wrong, backwars, sideways. He did his job and he did it well.

No offence, but that is not the right way to think, sounds like brainwashed talk to me.

A soldier doesn't automatically get respect, simply because he's a soldier? he has to earn it by fighting for what is right. So yes it does matter if the war is right, wrong, backwards, sideways.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by dgtempe

What threats are you talking about? I hope it's not threats by Iran? As in threats the media keep making up to make ordinary Americans "hate" Iran....If you find yourself suddenly disliking Iran and Iranians maybe you should think about how the Germans got so many common people to go along with the holocaust

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

these Iran bombing threads are starting to get up there in numbers with those wacky 9/11 nut job threads

You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to know this is all hype put out for disinformation to bug Iran.

If there is an attack it will come when everyone least expects it. And it won't be while Bush is in office. IMHO

To much going down with up coming elections-a no brainer. When I was on "the carrier" we steamed over there often (and other places0 and these rumors of war always started..
And when something did happen, it was usually when nobody noticed

[edit on 30-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]

*sighs*

Is this the same planned air strike that was meant to happen last summer along with the nuclear strike on the United States too?

These posts are stupid and have no credibility. The atimes is nothing but another forum that they publish like its real news. I.Q.'s have definitely dropped on ATS.

reply to post by dgtempe


I hope the world has not gone mad. A warmonger president should be locked up and tested for sanity. Peace will come when love is present.

youtube.com...

video.google.com...

Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'

About damn time, should have been done back in 2000 when he was first in office, well before bothering with Iraq.

reply to post by USMC-oorah


So is AC/DC Oi? Could you argue it is or was in the Scott days?

Anyway, people would be suprised at how much force the US can muster. The Anglomerican culture is viscious and resourceful. We'll stomp peoples' heads. If we couldn't and we're so distatseful and evil, why hasn't somebody knocked our block off?
We can fight many wars on many fronts and US citizens better get used to our Armed forces being deployed en masse in foreign lands. It will be this way for the forseeable future. Not as if it hasn't been that way for a long time anyway.

What about this: I've heard from several sources that there is widespread support of regime change/revolution in Iran. Some first hand.
Where are the Iranians in Iran on ATS? Or anyone who is or has recently been? What's the real word on the streets of Tehran?

They do have some excellent institutions, etc. They're not Arabs. For whatever that's worth. I thought we'd be more diplomatic, but conspiracy or no, you can't scare the Israelis. We don't like it. We will deal with Iran on our terms eventually. Not that the Israelis can't take care of themselves, but I really don't think people in the ME really want to go toe to toe with the Jews.

If I was in Iraq, I would be all for pushing over the Zagros.

People forget sometimes. Why did we prop up Iraq in the 80's? Why are we occupying Afghanistan? Afghans? Opium? Afghan solid state goods? Goats milk? Dust supplies? No...

Also, I think it's a gross oversimplification to say that the Persian's rescued Europe from its own ignorance. Gross oversimplification. And what does that have to do with modern Iran? That's like comparing the US to the Romans. Cute, but inaccurate.

If we could we'd probably hit them with some EM, but I think the important regions in Iran don't have much potential for plate techtonics or storms.

Originally posted by tyranny22

The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq.

Why punish Iran for their involvement in Iraq?! 45% of the terrorist operating in Iraq are Saudi. Why don't we bomb the hell out of Saudi Arabia? Can anyone answer this question? WTF?!

EDIT: to correct figure

[edit on 28-5-2008 by tyranny22]

Money. They pay us not to kick their asses. It's that simple. Sure they export enemy combatants, but the key is export. They aren't combatants inside Saudi Arabia. So we'll wait for them outside, like a schoolyard fight in the old public school sysytem after the last bell.

reply to post by djerwulfe


Yeah. I know. The reason is obvious: Oil whoring. Our big wigs need there product in order to turn a nice large profit. Hence the Bin Laden group being "escorted" out of the country after 9/11 when America was officially a No Fly Zone. Special privileges and all. You think the President of France would have been given that luxury? I doubt it.

Anyway ... my point of that post was to offer up evidence that we're just saber rattling to a country for the fact that we (meaning those in control of our government) want their oil. There are plenty more countries that are providing more help to fighters in Iraq than Iran is. The only reason we're pointing fingers at Iran is because they're next on the oil agenda. Venezuela was an already failed attempt. Besides, we already have troops surrounding Iran.

Just waiting for the "attack" (supposedly by Iran) that will grant our government the ability to "green light" the attack. Will it be a "nuclear facility" like Syria had? Who knows ... but, I feel it's in the works and coming sooner than ANYONE thinks.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by tyranny22]

reply to post by tyranny22


I agree with you for the most part, but I think it goes deeper. Maybe something like there are three major military-industrial-media styles globally. And this is one of the big slufests. We due for one. The world waited on the Cold War to see who to fight next.
Three systems in competition: Western Root-Tootin'
Militant Organized Islam
Asian-Style Free market

Western root-tootin' will win, because it always does. Maybe the US won't win, per se, but those values are, when actually supported by civil bodies, great for fostering smart, tough, indepependent people. And smart, tough independent people come out on top in the long run. As much as we try to be nice and and charitable, our hand is forced. Us or them.
It sorta goes beyond bickering. Thermodynamics maybe. Population Ecology. Sorta impersonal and no amount of politickin' will sort this out. Only death.

reply to post by djerwulfe


I think we see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

The more this "War on Terror" culminates, the more I start to believe in the Albert Pike Three World Wars letter.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by tyranny22]

Well, we have not yet attacked Iran, and big money wouldn't like it if we did.
The "Preemptive Strike" mentality is flawed and dangerous, but consists of picking in governments we can more easily subdue. Had we historically proceeded according to preemptive logic, we would have previously attacked Iran, a known nuclear danger, rather than Iraq. The answer can be found in global energy dependence. The Stait of Hormuz, where 40% of the worlds oil transits, is 20 miles wide adjacent to Iranian territorial waters, so Iran can blow up tankers there with ease. The "Preemptive Strike" mentality especially does not apply to Iran, which can easily shut down the world’s oil supply. That is why Iran continues to defy UN inspectors.
Our country is presently too short on domestically produced oil to attack Iran. Due to National Security concerns, our Country needs to create a domestic energy policy to stimulate domestic supply sources as a first priority.
The UN would not support an attack, since the international community is dependent on Middle Eastern production transiting the Stait of Hormuz.
Finally, one could surmise that our global financiers would not permit an attack on Iran. Saudi Arabia alone owns over 7% of the USA, and they want to continue to ship their oil and make more money. Other world governments hold US Treasury bonds too, and contribute to PAC's as well. They have an awful lot of clout in Washington. An attack on Iran is a political won't happen.

From the January 2007 Idaho Observer:
.........................................................
By Don Nicoloff (

While many Americans argue about a variety of current scandals in federal, state, and local governments throughout the United States, the media has remained suspiciously silent about them. Contrary to the myriad of facts and evidence of government complicity or wrongdoing that independent investigators have been steadily uncovering in their analyses of the "attacks" on the World Trade Center; the "bombing" of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; the sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge; the facts behind the shoot-out at the Rayburn Senate Office Building/parking garage in May, 2006; the virtual security collapse and mass invasion by illegal aliens along U.S. Borders; the spraying of our skies, crops, and water resources with chemtrails; the numerous bank, investment, securities frauds and sex scandals among members of the Congress, the Senate and the Roman Catholic Church; the secret formation of a "North American Union" and its NAFTA "Super Highway"; the ill-conceived "War on Terror" and the phony "War on Drugs," the mainstream media has been complicit in conspiracies of silence.

In fact, the media has aided and abetted our "elected" lawbreakers in these coverups by endlessly spewing the "talking points" designed to create dissent, confusion and to ridicule or discredit those who demonstrate courage while exposing these despicable and treasonous acts.

Never before in our history has the erosion of Constitutional rights and civil liberties been occurring at such an accelerated pace. There is no denying that the age of Big Brother is now upon us, but those who are naive enough to believe the propaganda they are being spoon-fed on a daily basis are in complete denial that ours is no longer the land of the free. The mind control programs to maintain the illusion of freedom in the mass American mind have been in place for many years and are being tested and modified as needed.

For those who would argue that the media is "fair and balanced," one need only to perform a Google search on the Internet to learn that "Operation Mockingbird" was the government's official declaration that the mainstream media will be controlled — at any cost. The $64,000 question is: "Exactly how much money will it take to control the mainstream media?" The answer: "Lots — billions, at the very least."

Enter Leo Wanta

Beginning in the early-1980s, President Ronald Reagan and a small group of his closest advisors initiated a plan to destabilize the Russian ruble. Reagan recruited his most-trusted intelligence agent Leo Emil Wanta to perform this delicate task. Wanta had served the U.S. intelligence community as a Treasury agent, in arms dealing and in other "sensitive" matters. He was chosen for this mission, not only for his loyalty to the president, but also for his unfailing honesty. In addition to his responsibilities in carrying out this covert financial coup against the former Soviet Union, Wanta was also instrumental in thwarting an attempted assassination of President Reagan "in the White House"—yet another event that went unreported by the media.

The presidency of Ronald Reagan was tumultuous, to say the least. Reagan's administration survived several scandals and he, personally, survived several assassination attempts. Only one of these attempts, the shooting by John W. Hinkley, Jr., would be made public. That shooting was captured live on television and posed a particular problem for the media—there would be no video coverup of the events. Even the shooting of White House Press Secretary Jim Brady was broadcast, along with the apprehension of Hinkley.

In hindsight, a closer look at the 1981 attempted assassination of President Reagan smacks of a conspiracy. Not of Jodie Foster, but of a Montauk-style event. Was it possible that "those in the know"
READ MORE @ HTTP:// WWW.WORLDREPORTS.ORG/NEWS

reply to post by kdial1


It's just like Bush and company to plan such an attack as the world will be focused on peace and the Bejing Olympics.

With any backstabbing mass con job, there must be a legitimate smoke screen to devert our attention from their warring agenda.

Bush - "Me and Condi have flipped ah coin and decided to bomb the evil 'nuke enrichmenter's' to coincide with the opening ceremony... that way, we can blame the Chinese by saying 3000 intercontinental bottle rockets got loose."