'US talks to Iran to legitimize attack'

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


I don't really care who made the images. The fact is, we have Iran surrounded with American forces. That is quite a bit different than having a base or two in a country.

If you can't see that our relations with Iran are different than our relations with countries like Cuba and Venezuela, then it really isn't worth having a conversation about it. You clearly have your mind made up.

reply to post by Karlhungis


You should care, because they have an agenda. What constitutes a base in those pictures? A supply depot is technically a military base, but the fact that its near a border isn't really any cause for concern - maybe its along a supply line? That is why you shouldn't use propaganda images.

Anyone who has done five minutes of research would quickly find that there is no reason to start a military conflict with Iran. We have nothing to gain, and much to lose. There are easier ways to promote an agenda than military conflict in the current environment.

I see you can't see that our relationship with Iran is indeed very similar with the relationship we have with other countries. The same amount of grand standing has occurred, that Iran is currently the target of fear mongering means little for those who look at the data. But I guess your just here to push a worldview, your mind's already made up.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Being our military is there, in any way shape of form means something.
Especially when we are obviously bordering a nation we accuse of being hostile.


Also,
I highly doubt even the most ignorant of army commanders places a supply depot on a border, without having a firebase nearby, or within!

I believe that this situation MUST end in one way: Conflict. No matter who fires the first shot, doesn't matter. Never really does. If the us govt says in two months that today one of our naval ships was attacked by iran, can i believe this story? if iran says america attacked a nuclear facility today, can i believe this story? the truth is, we will have no idea how it really starts.
what i worry about is this: israel allegedly believes that iran is hellbent on destroying it as a nation. iran has said asmuch many times recently. if u believe that and u are a smaller nation than the state of rhode island, a couple nuclear blasts would next to exterminate your nation in 10 minutes. can u take that risk? no.
so the question then is, if not now, then when? israel believes they have about 10 or so months, from what i remember reading recently, until iran gets to the point where they can eliminate israel from functioning as a society in 10 minutes.
another thing, that really really concerns me is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China and Russia consider Iran a matter of national interest. If Israel engages Iran in a conflict and the US gets pulled in, a large part of China's oil may be threatened. They cannot sit idly by. Iran is one of Russia's biggest customers. So what will China and Russia do when the conflict develops? That is the BIG question. Do our leaders know what they will do? Never before has the US been so vulnerable, the economy is about to collapse. That is our achilles heal. China and Russia, I believe, may strike and strike hard like the cobra. Just like Sun Tzu says.
Some of u can say blah blah blah they've been saying for 3 years Iran would be attacked. But now the chess pieces are right where the SCO needs them. Now is the moment they've been waiting for.

Originally posted by Animal

'US talks to Iran to legitimize attack'

www.jpost.com

Recent talks the United States held with Iran are aimed at creating legitimacy for a potential attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials speculated on Sunday as Defense Minister Ehud Barak headed to Washington for talks with senior administration officials.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is that not backwards? How about, talking to avoid an attack. The USA does not want war with Iran.

-DA

Your Images do not reflect the fact that the American bases have also had a WEDGE driven straight through the middle of them. Those in Afghanistan will be simply obliterated. Completely isolated.

Leaving a one on one with Iran who has the high ground (Iran is mountainous).

Ridiculous picture.

As far as war - I can not bring myself to believe it will happen - there is absolutely no doubt what so ever that Russia, Pakistan, China, will all get behind Iran - India has finally agreed to nuclear agreement with the U.S. and would be happy to settle a few scores with China and Pakistan - however it would be obliterated - and would have to remain neutral.

The U.S. will form a Naval blockage of in the Gulf as part of its "SANCTIONS" this is universally considered an act of war - however the MSM will not acknowledge this and when Iran responds this will be seen as the first strike and retaliation will be subsequently justified.

War with Iran will end the the relatively peaceful interlude the west has enjoyed in since the end of hostilities after WW2, it will be a clash between east and west, north and south, Christian and Muslim....and not for the first time,......white Christians will lose.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Not going to happen. Only in the most fantastical dreams and hopes of the ATS doom and gloom/"Bush is responsible for all bad in the world" fringe would an attack on Iran happen.

Here in cozy reality, never going to happen. Why? Because the political capital for military action has been expended. It would take nothing less than overt, direct, and undeniable hostile action from iran (ie, a missile/combat force destroying something - even aiming missles at this point wouldn't cause the US to attack). Thats not going to happen either. Iran is not stupid.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

well it's not like the US hasn't engaged in false flag operations before to justify war

reply to post by ToolFanMael


Hey man, get out of here with that dirty, liberal, DNC propaganda!!!



LIES, ALL LIES!!!!!!!!!



But seriously, the S*** will hit the fan, whether we like it or not. I have seen too many, "coincidences" of late to believe otherwise.....Just my $.02

[edit on 28-7-2008 by SilentBob86]

Originally posted by johnsky
It doesn't matter what Iran does.
Whether it has WMD's or doesn't have WMD's.

This has nothing to do with WMD's in the slightest... it's all about reaping in as much personal profits from warfare as possible during this administrations term.

Iran could turn into the strictest Christian country on earth, abandon all weapons not just ballistics, and pledge to feed the worlds poor for free... the US is still going to go in there and attack them.

Because thats what the US has become... just some piddly war hungry nation, no different from the war lords in Africa, only with more guns.

right so ahimedijad didnt say he is going to wipe isreal of the map? or iran isnt supplying weapons to terroist organisations? or being supplied and tooled up by russia? or is still going ahead with uranium super-enrichment, even though they have all that oil for energy, and all the g8 countries including russia and china have offered to help build civilian water based reactors; more than capableof meeting irans energy needs.

i am against war, but i cant stand it when people rant at america for the sake of sounding left.

some one needs to do their home work before they attack america.

btw this reply doesnt mean i love the bush administration, on the contrary.

however i will not let iran of the hook

There is no chance that the US is going to attack Iran - no matter how bad the Bush bashers want it to happen. Tensions my rise - but there will be no attack.

sorry if these vids are re-posts,but important...

wars have been played out...tired of it

Israel wont go at it alone after the last mini war in Lebanon.

How much oil does Iran import to the US? Will this one really be for oil?

For all those wishful thinkers that say the US shouldn't or should attack Iran, as I read history; I can't escape one simple fact.
The US will inevitably eliminate the current Iranian regime no matter who wins the next presidential election.

Don't forget the these very important points.
The taking of the US embassy by Iran was "the" act of war against the US.
Since Reagan the full force of the US government has been put to task to eliminate the Iranian regime by Presidential determination.
Bush Sr., Clinton, and now Bush Jr. have all dutifully carried out Reagan's original Presidential determination that set the course for the nation or signed their own Presidential determinations, but the the nations strategic objective concerning Iran has not changed.

The US makes and executes long range plans.
It's like chess, but make no mistake it is not a game.
Diplomatically, overtly, covertly, or militarily the US carries out it's national objectives.
The economic costs and costs in human lives are not secondary, they are simply the cost of achieving the nations objectives.

If you need a recent example to jog your memory...
Iraq's attack on the USS Stark (also an act of war) and the US government's policy to take down Saddam Hussein's regime is a very good example.

In my opinion the reason the US took down Saddam before dealing with Iran is that Saddam would have very likely come to Iran's aid militarily in a US vs. Iran conflict to enhance his stature in the Islamic world.
Obviously Iran did not come to Saddam's aid.

Once the US has all the pieces in place; Iran will stand alone.

A1idpirat

Originally posted by mproject

right so ahimedijad didnt say he is going to wipe isreal of the map? or iran isnt supplying weapons to terroist organisations? or being supplied and tooled up by russia? or is still going ahead with uranium super-enrichment, even though they have all that oil for energy, and all the g8 countries including russia and china have offered to help build civilian water based reactors; more than capableof meeting irans energy needs.

1 : You haven't heard the full version of that conversation?
It was Israel that said they'd launch a preemptive attack on Iran.
Iran replied with "If you attack us without reason, we will wipe you off the map."
It was Israel that made the aggressive gesture, Iran simply retorted.

2 : No. Actually the US's own intelligence services have concluded that Iran is in fact not the supplier of the Iraqi insurgents weapons. Problem is, the Main-Stream Cable-TV Media didn't bother broadcasting that.
Though, they still haven't told us where they ARE coming from.
My guess is gun runners from other areas of the world, other than that particular region.

3 : Yes, Iran does trade with Russia, there's nothing illegal about that.

4 : If you had the option of running your country with nuclear energy, and allowing your oil companies to make a fortune by selling the oil to other countries, what would you do? It would certainly make for an awesome economy boost.

Nuclear energy is sustainable, easily. We all know we will run out of oil eventually, if not within the next few hundred years. If the nuclear power plants are operational now, there won't be a mad dash later to try to get it sorted out.


Quite frankly, I fail to see anything illegal with any of this.

I still haven't been shown any evidence that shows Iran to be the awful bogeyman of a country the US is trying to make them out to be.

They haven't invaded anyone since the old days of empires and monarchies, which is saint like compared to what the rest of us have been doing.
They elect their president, their people are diverse, they are asking for peace, and a chance to ensure the future of their people by giving them a stable power source.

None of this tells me they're evil.

I mean, what facts do you have that state they need to be murdered?
I haven't seen any.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by johnsky]

Originally posted by johnsky

I mean, what facts do you have that state they need to be murdered?
I haven't seen any. [

i have no facts to which iran should be murdered,
but thats only because whatever facts there should be i would not
wave the flag of approval either way.

an american is an american, an iranian is an iranian, and i am a brit,

the fact is all our goverments have commited themselves to atrocities,
however this time a man with an extremist islamic political motive, with two super powers (china and russia) behind them supplying them weapons,
ahmidejad has become a figure head for the arab aliance (the same group who attacked isreal in the sixday war) and if you check your middle-east political map, everyone of those countries (wiki the arab aliance and see which countries) are enemies with isreal.

and with respect, do not patronise me and suggest that i get all my infomation from cable.

iran has stressed its motives all around the world to try to get allies against isreal and still doesnt see it as a legal state.

dont pretend he has peaceful motives for nucleur enrichment, if he has then why has he rejected water based reactors? and proceeded with super enrichment?



[edit on 29-7-2008 by mproject]