Warmonger Thread

They won't call them totalitarian governments; they'll be military governments with the civil government still there but in a redundant mode. The military will call the shots -- the same way as a general does in Afghanistan, or previously in Iraq. The general in command takes over the scene. He makes the calls.

So we have to imagine the same sort of thing within a country where you've got a military-based civil government, calling the shots, with the so-called elected government almost redundant. The military-based government will provide the security for the people who are living in these countries who have yet to be affected by this type of onslaught.

Let me address this. Maybe. I'm Canadian. I suspect that my framework of what's around me would not suggest this to me for here. Maybe in other areas. Just wouldn't work here.

I can't see it working in Europe either. Their militaries aren't right for it. No cohesion. No cooperation. Wrong training. Wrong personalities. Wrong leadership. And I don't see any group that is prepared to provide this framework in a quick and efficient manner.

These "minor details" aren't. This is a narrative for poking Americans in their chicken brain. ( stolen from MM!
)

And then we descend into madness. If this is a real warning, do you do this intentionally?

suprise suprise, the iraq war was about oil

How much more evidence do people need? And why time and
time again, people still refuse to believe it!

Originally posted by Jay-morris
suprise suprise, the iraq war was about oil

How much more evidence do people need? And why time and
time again, people still refuse to believe it!

It isn't analogus. Iran isn't Iraq.

Frankly, Iraq was friggin' up their fields. Getting them off the market for a while probably helped prices. Getting their fields properly managed will lengthen their lifespan considerably.


Oh, and Project Camelot guy: why invest so much money into development in these areas, when someone is about to blow them off the map? Not very sensible. Another nail in the coffin of the narrative. Though I'll give you a little bone. If the project money is back loaded, then there is little lost.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Jay-morris
suprise suprise, the iraq war was about oil

How much more evidence do people need? And why time and
time again, people still refuse to believe it!

It isn't analogus. Iran isn't Iraq.

Frankly, Iraq was friggin' up their fields. Getting them off the market for a while probably helped prices. Getting their fields properly managed will lengthen their lifespan considerably.


Oh, and Project Camelot guy: why invest so much money into development in these areas, when someone is about to blow them off the map? Not very sensible. Another nail in the coffin of the narrative. Though I'll give you a little bone. If the project money is back loaded, then there is little lost.

edit on 2012/1/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

It does not matter if the oil fields are better run. The fact is they lied, and
the war was illegal. Iran is exactly in the same situation now. Its all
about oil and putting puppet governments that will benifit your
american government in the long run. But one day, they will go
to far, and we will all pay the price for putting money into the pockets
of these oil companies and the likes if chaney and bush.

How is it the same?

Originally posted by Aeons
How is it the same?

both in the middle east
both have oil
both were invaded or will be invaded because of weapons.
a puppet government was put into iraq, and im sure the same will
happen to iran if invaded.
Just like iraq, evidence will not be found, but people will say
" its ok because the government were bad" same excuse people
use now for the invasion of Iraq.

Just like iraq, british and american oil companies will be first in line.

Now, this might not happen, if this invasion brings russia and china
into the frame. If this happens, then ww3 will follow, and we will
all pay the price of blindly following our governments.

So their names both start with I, and they are nearby each other.

There is plenty of production out there right now in a depressed market. No need to invade anywhere for more.

Your analysis, it lacks depth.

Aeon, I like your geopolitical insights. And your cryptic style.

Here are two articles with a seemingly opposing viewpoint.
www.opednews.com...
This is by a long-time analysis.

(By Israel in my later posts I only meant 'the haws' allied with neocons as this guy says. I am pro-Israeli but afraid that Israel will be a casualty.)
It is odd if they really cut out Panetta's single word 'No' on US TV.
However, the time frame is short - for those that believe Iran does not have a bomb. (No evidence, but I think they do and teh do not advertise it. Which defuses neocon popular propaganda since they failed to attack so far. THEY sound like as soon as Iran manufactures its first bomb, it will happily nuke Israel. Which I doubt at this point.)

Here's an article from Israel:
Iran 'Can Build Nuclear Bomb Now'
www.independent.co.uk...

This says within a year they can have an independent bomb. (Avoids the issue whether they have one bought from purchased plutonium now. My intutition - let's say - says they have five or six.)

Question: apart from our shared dislike of the Theocracy there, why is it better to have a war sooner than those events you can think of or war at a later time?

A guy wrote a long and very rational thread on glp
www.godlikeproductions.com...
claiming he works for the elite and he advanced the argument that most of humanity is in a state where sadly, a third world war is the only way before a better civilization can be created.
And that there will be three months of total electricity outage following the war. He set no timeframe - says that is amateurish. He 'works' for those that produce bad things for the ultimate good - calls it the globalist elite. He says at this time tensions should be whipped up between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries by ways of magic rituals... (The thread is 300 pp long, but I also have a summary.)

From the above two articles I surmise the West is ready to start a clean way - if Iran really wants to attack, of course you will lose a lot of peaceniks. Both articles say that Iran is undecided at this point whether they want to make nuclear warheads at all.

So, what's your analysis on these issues now?

Ahmadinejad's blusters could be just a trap to enticed Israel to strike first. If Israel did execute a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, this will give Iran the political justification or cover to nuke Israel, if not immediately but sometime later down the road. If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, will the U.S. retaliate in kind for Israel? Not really, because Israel struck first - similiar to the Japanese sneak attack/pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. The one who struck first is generally viewed as the evil one.

Originally posted by deepankarm
Yeah, i hate America, so what???
You invented nuclear weapons to bully the whole world...
What do you think you are ???
Here is the deal.
Get rid of your nuclear arsenal first and any potential weapon to destroy this planet and force others to do the same...
That will be the steps of a true leader...
Will you do that???
If not, then you are the biggest terrorists and nothing more whatever you think of yourselves...

You hate what you do not understand. The facts are the U.S. would be extremely happy if the Nations of the Worlds leadership did not have to keep fighting 1000 year old wars and force us to go in and pick up the mess.

The U.S. and especially the U.S. Military has responsibilities that you cannot fathom. When the invasion of Germany was in it's final days...what side do you think the scientists and general poulation wanted to run towards...it sur as hell wasn't the Soviets side.

The U.S. is not perfect and yes we have made mistakes...but we own up to our mistakes. I know many people who I met years ago on the other side of the Iron Curtain and believe me...they would have done just about anything besides being gunned down in vain...to get to West Germany...or specifically West Berlin.

You hate America? The U.S. has kept this World from going into another WWIII scenario for almost 70 years because NO ONE including the Soviets and now Russia and China...would chance confronting both the U.S. Military or these countries connection to the U.S. Economy. The U.S. was never about war...it was about keeping the peace...and protecting people who had no one to protect them...Look at Bosnia, look who it was that helped the Russians disarm former Soviet states...Iran does not have to be a U.S. enemy...all they have to do is complywith a treaty THEY SIGNED and stop making threats that they KNOW they cannot carry out. That is all Iran is doing...talking war and threatening the Greatest Military Might that has ever existed on Planet Earth with words like...our navy will block the strait of the worlds shipped oil supplies...if they actually did this...China, Russia and every other country in the world would want Irans head on a platter. Split Infinity

I'm going to clarify that on the camelot posts I was riffing on possibilities. I have been considering the China-Russia corridor for a while so I had no problem coming up with some possibilities for it. Had to pull up some stuff to see if what I remembered wasn't off the rails.

I don't have a set opinion on this subject. I merely have views (sometimes multiple ones) based on the data I have available.

As to your articles there, they are actually saying the same thing about the essential information, just presenting two different view points on what to do about it.

I was reading a game theorist who has suggested as well that Iran won't develop a nuke. I just tried to find where I read it as it was in one of my magazines in the last couple of months but didn't see it. A friend or family member might have absconded with that issue.

The US administration doesn't like Israel, no matter how much everyone says they do. Israel is playing chicken with the Western nations about Iran.

Lula da Silva and Erdogan play their own games for their own reasons. Do you really think either of them do anything because it is just right for mankind? I haven't noticed that in either of their personalities myself.

It is still my opinion that Iran has all intentions of creating enriched uranium. They have already proved they can, so that theory that "proving they can" will be enough seems to ring hollow to me. They proved it quite some time ago. The only reason they have to do so is for its military value. I've seen nothing that convinces me otherwise.


I'll go read the glp thing. People keep trying to give it to me. I'm sure that there are several billion people who believe that wiping people out enmasse is a great idea. This opinion is hardly reserved for "elite." I think it is a type of fantastist thinking to assuage people's frustrations over immensely complex situations.

from Aion
The only reason they have to do so is for its military value. I've seen nothing that convinces me otherwise.

Do you think they could possibly want it as a deterrent?
Some people argued along those lines.
If there is a deterrent, logic may change to what it was with the Soviets.
No one did a shot. First strike you're out.
And they have Russian teachers...

They may have suicidal warriors but they are for the nation. If the whole nation is annihilated, that loses validity. At least from the government's point of view.

Neocons on the way to world domination as well as the Likud are the wild card. They simply whip up tensions until the war breaks out here. And paint it as inevitable.

As well as the continuing Arab Spring. Which may deflect the tension for a while.

The Arab Spring is a joke. A bad one. You might say, I am a bit enraged about it. I hope that I am wrong about all of it. I'm probably not but hope springs eternal.

Do I think they want it as a deterrent? No. I really don't. They want it as a power play regionally and internationally. They are playing for their place at the table of the 12th Imam or the Caliphate.

They bring problems upon themselves with it. They are hoping to rely on their location on the planet as being a protective force, but it essentially means that there is no real possibility of a "Cold War II" directed at Iran.

Sanctions have their limits, and frankly the black market doesn't give a damn about them and they aren't about to stop doing what they do. Iran's location is not isolated. Its problematic, but trade is still going to go through it.

Arab spring: I feel for some of those people. I have been in similar lives. (If you are anti-reincarnationist, just do not respond to this.) Also, in Iran.
That is how I also know how deeply repressive and totalitarian Islam can look from the inside.
(I was a prominent Sufi. Which movement was persecuted time to time - Inquisition style.)

In several of these cultures we have a modern madness, a paranoid fantasy playing out.
In the Christian Right, it is Armageddon, bringing the manuscript of the Revelations into reality.

Here is the madness of the West:

The idea of the Christian Right in the US is that Israel should somehow become a super-empire in the ME, subduing all Arabs and Persians and Egyptians and basically everyone, backed by the US that should be controlled by them and neocon hawks (screw democracy and religious freedom), then in a second step, all Jews would suddenly convert to American TV evangelism (good luck with that), with the rejected Ismail or whoever being the father of all Islamic folks (obviously a racist error). Screw the environment, Jesus is returning anyway and the thousand-year-old kingdom starts. Anything that threatens this should be persecuted with ruthless force involving torture and atomics - since the salvation of the whole world is at stake.

Now quite obviously, this is - although a legitimate religious line from a democratic POV - a mindset of a dangerous, aggressive paranoid schizophrenic. I guess roughly 25% of us Americans actually support it. Trouble is we have the single most powerful military in the world and a lot of dough.

The madness of Islam: please describe this 12th Imam briefly in similar terms for the benefit of the readers. Also, the Caliphate. Bear in mind they might sound crazier because they are more powerless at this point - and I can feel in some of them a collective revenge act for the horrors of Western colonization and its consequent empires. What role do Shiites and Sunnis play in this?

The madness of radical nationalist Jews: we have to strike back at the entire world (chiefly Arabs and Iran because we have engaged them anyway) for the European holocaust. America should simply come to execute our plans with no questions asked. We should be the only regional power. Everyone else will get their necks broken by our Big Brother.

Armilus is there, then some people want the Temple restored and burn some animals there.

I come from a Christian background so I know that type of the three crazinesses the best and I can criticize that.

How are these three interrelated? Possibly you know it to some extent and you can describe it. Because I am getting the feeling that all three are agents of a giant malevolent power game that is being played at the expense of millions of human beings who would simply want to develop on this planet to a normal, humane civilization without all this medieval stuff.

(And I know decent people from all three backgrounds, but I can just sense this fundamentalist energy.)

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by WozaMeathed

 

Your peace at any price bowing before the god of fear creates a world of nuclear proliferation at a rapidly escalating rate, and creates the very things you claim to hate.

You create a world with more conflict. There is no price you aren't willing to pay to assuage your fear.

Seriously WTF are you on about??????
Go back and read my posts and not just the ones that you agree to on this thread and you would realise that i dont want any country to have nuclear weapons. But i guess your just another blinded american.
I have stated that i dont think anyone should have nuclear weapons, but if America and Russia ect ect have them then Iran should too. Who are you to dictate to the world what should and shouldnt be done.

Most of the religions on this planet right now are working with narratives that use Deux-ex-Machina. This is a theatrical term adopted from ancient Greek plays, in which the authour would whip the entire story up and get to a point where they couldn't resolve the story line so they would have a God descend on a chair from Heaven and fix everything.

These plays started with a chorus invoking a God(s), making the entire theatrical experience a form of religious interactive experience

If this narrative truly is in play, I can pin point for you a moment in time when there was a public chorus invoking Gods that passed people by. U2U.

Not all Islam believes in the 12th Imam - Iranians do though, so it is relevant. However, the re-establishment of the Caliphate is cross sect though there is disagreement about this organization of theocratic jurisprudence and executive power being a council of equals or a council topped by a single first amoungst them as The Caliph.

The 12th Imam would a man who comes and leads the people of the Servants of Allah to their rightful place in dominating the World. The government of Iran has specifically stated their purpose is to pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam.

www.jstor.org...

For those who like metaphors in fiction, it is Dune.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by WozaMeathed

 

Well, after 40 odd pages even though you were trying to prove other wise, your thread is still a warmongers thread .

Well….some people just don’t know what a warmonger is. I don’t want war nor have I advocated war.

The one thing that pisses me off the most about this thread is that you Seabag have changed your avatar from a solider dressed ready to kill, to a man in uniform holding a baby. Even if your holding a baby your thoughts and intentions to kill are just the same. Your changing of avatars is a pathetic way to try to sway the posters since your arguements couldnt sway them.

The fact is you can’t justify lunatics with nuclear weapons so you want to attack me personally. So be it!

Fact is America is run by lunatics and you cant justify the USA having nuclear weapons and why you want to kill those that do want to have them.

Conclusion - After 46 pages, there has been no justification provided for supporting a nuclear Iran that wasn’t completely trivial. Iranian leadership is dangerous…they should not be allowed to have nukes.

Conclusion- after 47 pages you still come across as a warmongor

And to answer your question - yoozameathed!

And your still a puppet, killing for a government that doesnt care about you or its citizens

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Very true, but as you can see from this thread, there
are many brainwashed people out there who stick
up for their governments, and dont have the balls
to do otherwise.

Governments tell us from a young age to love our country,
to fight for our country. These people just cant see how brainwahed
they are

Patrioism for your country just causes problems

It gets to the point
where governments just have to say "you are fighting for your country" and people
will pretty much do anything and belive everything their
government says.

Iraq is a great example.

All you have to do is go back to WW2, your country was ready to fall to Hitler and if it wasn't for the United States giving your country materials PLUS the bravery of your BRAINWASHED countrymen (and Americans in the Eagle Squadron) during the Battle of Briton fighting the Luftwaffe your life would be far different.
I suggest you talk to some more intelligent older folks that were alive during that time and see if they share your beliefs.
My dad who was in WW2 3rd Army under General Patton who eventually died years later from wounds and freezing his lungs in the Battle of the Bulge, hated war but he said if England, France and the United States had stopped Hitler when he first invaded Poland WW2 would have not happened.
The problem was, nobody drew a line in the sand. Hitler saw that we didn't do anything and was all talk so he expanded his might a little at a time till all of Europe was his... it wasn't until your country was in his sights that we all decided to act and stop him... everybody knows how much all of the world paid in bloodshed for this passive waiting game.
Please do what I ask, talk to older folks that remember when the fate of your country depended on what you call brainwashed "patriotic" people and us yanks!

Originally posted by wulff.
My dad who was in WW2 3rd Army under General Patton who eventually died years later from wounds and freezing his lungs in the Battle of the Bulge, hated war but he said if England, France and the United States had stopped Hitler when he first invaded Poland WW2 would have not happened.

During the time of the invasion of Poland, Germany had the most modern and powerful land army in the world. England, France, and the U.S. cannot stop the German army from invading Poland (1939-1940 time frame). It took several years for the Allies to build up their armies to counter the German army.

reply to post by coolieno99


The US wasn't involved in that War at that point.

I think you may not appreciate that the major players at that time weren't totally interested in saving Poland. Give the beast something to eat and maybe it'll be full attitude. They hadn't fully grasped the totality of the beast hunger.