Article: Romney Strategists Prepare for War Against Iran

The Emergency Committee for Israel is running an advertisement urging an immediate war
with Iran. This organization was founded by Weekly Standard creator, and Romney strategist, William Kristol.

Its message is that the evil, Jewish-hating Persian theocracy must be obliterated
to make way for Israeli expansion.

Sound preposterous? Well, the ploy, here, is to make Romney look like a Delta Team 6 super-commando. This supposedly will take Jewish voters away from Obama in the November election. The other purpose is to sanctify the execution of a million Iranians when Romney orders the bombing come next January.

Full article

Whoever is handpicked to be in the White House come next January will be giving this order. As I've said numerous times before, the groundwork is already being laid for another Middle Eastern crusade. TPTB have had their eye on Iran for some time (although I still think the next crusade could be in Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Either that or it could be some combination of these nations). Also a crusade into Iran (after a false flag) could be used as justification for keeping troops in Afghanistan, and back into Iraq maybe, a move Mitt Romney has said he backs.

Only here could such trash be currency....

Israel wanting to expand its borders? What proof at all do you have for that? NONE WHATSOEVER. It is antisemtic slander, PERIOD. Every single 'land grab' Israel has ever made has been at the heels of a defensive war which they won; ADDITIONALLY, If Israel were at all interested in expansion, there would be no sense in giving away land, as they have done in Sinai - the whole peninsula, essentially the size of Israel - the Gaza strip, Hebron, northern Samaria...

The Jews simply cannot win. Everything they do has some secret machination behind it. There is absolutely no clout whatsoever in this claim that they mean to expand their borders (beside quoting biblical prophecy, yet neither the irreligious secular left (labor) nor the pragmatic conservative right have any interest in following biblical prophecy; their interests are entirely practical)

reply to post by shaluach


Neocons just love wars don't they?

reply to post by dontreally


Dontreally, that's simply wrong. The Conservative Right isn't interested in Biblical Prophecy? That's just not true. Now those in POWER do not care, but they use these things to appeal to their base who DOES care. That's the only reason that the Right cares anything about Israel is because of some invented interpretation of Scriptures. And not everyone on the left is "irreligious secular." Personally I know more believing Liberals than atheist ones. You are buying into this Left vs. Right divisive tactic.

And to label this "antisemitic slander"? Really? That's so dishonest. Nothing but a cheap trick to silence opposition and criticism of Israel.

reply to post by shaluach


As I've said many times: Mitt will win. He's the one who has been handpicked by the Bilderberg boys. Daniels or Rubio will be VP and we will get our Iranian war.

reply to post by antonia


I don't entirely know, Antonia. I'm not entirely sure who they have picked just yet for this next round as POTUS (Puppet of the United States).

I mean Obama has shown he is proficient at war (while pacifying the Left who would be shouting at the top of their lungs if it was McCain using all these drone strikes, for instance). But Mitt has said he would be FOR keeping the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I do believe another war is being orchestrated. The groundwork is being laid. Iran seems to be the obvious choice, although I think it could also be Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Whichever war breaks out, I think it will be used as an excuse to keep troops in Afghanistan, which Romney would be helpful with. Of course Obama could be helpful with that also because of my above stated reason: His ability to make the Left go against their core values.

reply to post by shaluach

The Conservative Right isn't interested in Biblical Prophecy? That's just not true. Now those in POWER do not care, but they use these things to appeal to their base who DOES care.

I was referring to the Israeli right i.e. Likud.

And not everyone on the left is "irreligious secular." Personally I know more believing Liberals than atheist ones.

The left is not at all interested in religion in the same sense that the right is. Religion may be exploited by them at times, but their own personal feelings of religion is not traditional, which means, they are not sensitive at all to ideas like 'biblical prophecy'. Their spiritual feelings are secular, relativistic, embracing mostly eastern ideas mixed with socialist doctrine. My point in emphasizing this, is that the left, especially in Israel which is the de-facto establishment there (controlling the courts, universities and media), dont give a damn about biblical prophecy.

Both sides in Israel, left and right, want peace, albeit, with an implacable enemy who has no intention at all to make peace with them. The left tirelessly clamors to give away more land - to withdraw from the entire west bank (despite the security dilemma that would create), while the right, although trumpeting a 'conservative' doctrine in order to appeal to the traditional types, ironically, is the one who has historically given away lands to the enemy i.e. Begin (likud) is the one who gave the Sinai to sadat, Sharon (likud) is the one who evicted 10,000 Israelis from the Gaza strip....

You are buying into this Left vs. Right divisive tactic.

So....then, there is no difference in your mind between a secular humanistic socialist viewpoint, against a traditional, religious, democratic viewpoint??? The paradigm of 'right-left' unfortunately, is very real; people differ, and these differences happen to put people into some category.

Unless you are at least moderately educated, you are liable to believe the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo shovelled into the throats - indiscriminately - by alex jones, etc, who generalize away all differences between left and right as being nothing more than a mechanism used by 'elites' to control the masses, ignoring the real fundamental differences in outlook that creates those categories to begin with.

This isn't to say that there isn't an establishment who possibly manipulates the right-left paradigm to create a certain outcome. It's just to point out that the right-left paradigm is justified by the innate differences in human ideology.

And to label this "antisemitic slander"? Really? That's so dishonest. Nothing but a cheap trick to silence opposition and criticism of Israel.

to make way for Israeli expansion.

So theres nothing libelous in saying "to make way for Israeli expansion." ??? What basis is there for saying that?? Aside from antisemitic feelings, beclouded by anti-zionist rhetoric, could cause someone to mindlessly and carelessly make that accusation on such vacuous grounds.

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by antonia

 

Of course Obama could be helpful with that also because of my above stated reason: His ability to make the Left go against their core values.

I don't think so. Many in the left are already vowing not to vote for Obama due to his decidedly unprogressive actions. But, at the end of the day the vote doesn't really matter does it? Look at the ground in Florida and many of the other swing states. There are currently moves to remove "dead people and illegals" from the voter rolls, except most of the people targeted are minorities and democrats strangely enough. Romney is going to win by hook or crook. The groundwork is being laid for a 2000 redux.

Obama has used drone strikes and limited air strikes (I.E. Libya), but Iran would be more than this and I don't think he's enough of a warhawk for an Iranian strike. The GOP are generally the warhawks of TPTB. Obama was simply a bone thrown at the people after Bush to keep them from rioting.

reply to post by antonia


I'd actually be a bit surprised if Romney wins...but I guess it's plausible.

However, Obama, even if he is soft on Iran and willing to 'negotiate' ad infinitum until they actually have a fully functioning bomb with an ability to deploy it, still has the aptitude to jump on the war bandwagon and join Israel in an attack.

It's nothing but nonsense to think one party is more 'militant' then the other; after all, it was a social democrat, Franklin D Roosevelt, who was president during WWII, and Woodraw Wilson, another democrat, was president during WWI. If history stays true, it wouldn't be strange at all if Obama were reelected and brought America into a war against Iran.

reply to post by dontreally


This is 2012, the GOP are the general warmongers of TPTB these days. The Democrats simply put a human face on the TPTB's agenda. Sorry, I don't buy there is any difference between the parties worth discussing. If you want to have that kind of discussion you can do it with someone else.

Originally posted by dontreally




The left is not at all interested in religion in the same sense that the right is. Religion may be exploited by them at times, but their own personal feelings of religion is not traditional, which means, they are not sensitive at all to ideas like 'biblical prophecy'. Their spiritual feelings are secular, relativistic, embracing mostly eastern ideas mixed with socialist doctrine.

I'm sorry but that's just not true. Again, I know many Liberal Christians who do believe in Biblical Prophecy. I myself do, and on a lot of things I'd be considered (defined) as Progressive-leaning as long as it syncs with what Scriptures teach.

Originally posted by dontreally

So....then, there is no difference in your mind between a secular humanistic socialist viewpoint, against a traditional, religious, democratic viewpoint???

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the pitting of Right and Left views (which are almost ALWAYS social issues, and to a lesser degree fiscal issues) is a divisive tactic designed to divide and conquer.

Originally posted by dontreally
Unless you are at least moderately educated, you are liable to believe the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo shovelled into the throats - indiscriminately - by alex jones,

I don't listen to Alex Jones' drivel one bit. And I don't think that conspiracy theories are "mumbo jumbo." A lot of them are very real.

Originally posted by dontreally
who generalize away all differences between left and right as being nothing more than a mechanism used by 'elites' to control the masses, ignoring the real fundamental differences in outlook that creates those categories to begin with.

That's just not true. The "issues" and people's opinions on them can be very real. TPTB exploit those differences and keep people at each other's throats over these issues so they can continue to manipulate the world and enforce their own agenda. And when the Illuminati seizes control, we'll all be caught off-guard because we were bickering over gay marriage, welfare, or immigration.

Originally posted by dontreally

So theres nothing libelous in saying "to make way for Israeli expansion." ??? What basis is there for saying that?? Aside from antisemitic feelings, beclouded by anti-zionist rhetoric, could cause someone to mindlessly and carelessly make that accusation on such vacuous grounds.

Anti-zionism is not anti-semitism. Also, anti-semitism implies racism against Jewish people. Something being libelous is not necessarily racist in nature. Although I am not saying that "to make way for Israeli expansion" is libelous in the least bit.

reply to post by antonia


I don't know, Antonia. Most Liberals I know IRL and online that are disillusioned with SOME of what Obama has done are still voting for him come November, according to them. They even have all of these memorized, programmed responses to justify voting for someone who goes against their views.

reply to post by antonia


So there's no such as thing as ideological differences??

I agree that there is an 'establishment', but a distinction must be made between an establishment which manipulates a right-left paradigm in order to more subtly affect it's agenda, and the ideological basis of right-left to begin with.

Left is generally synonymous with liberal, socialist, humanistic, etc, while right is synonymous with conservative, democratic and traditional; wherever your own beliefs fall, you yourself fall into one of these categories. Thus, the right-left paradigm is a natural corollary of a free society. In that sense, I follow a 'party' that I feel ideologically most in tune with, whereas you could follow a completely different one. And the political dialogue proceeds from here.

Which would you prefer? Is it the 2 party equation that bothers you? Political manipulation works just as well, or perhaps better, in nations with more than 2 political parties (the best example of a constitutional government, in my opinion, would be the netherlands, or australia) such as Israel or the UK. In Israel, a 'unity government' essentially trumpets the same agenda as the previous government because endless compromises have to be made in order for the government to be established.

Society as a whole has major problems, but I don't think you can sum it up by criticizing the left-right paradigm as being inherently faulty, anymore than you can criticize religion for being inherently bad because it can be distorted and misused; everything can be misused. In order to make a better society, we need to make better, more moral people.

Lastly, as you said, the left is seen as the more humane; wouldn't this itself be a reasoning for the left launching a war, as opposed to the right? Wouldn't Obama receive more support than Romney, since Obama is already more liked and respected then the right?

In my opinion, if you're a political scientist, it would make a hell of a lot more sense, domestically, for Obama to do something so unpopular in American eyes then for the right to do it; there might still be opposition and protestation, but not as much as there would be if Romney were to do it.

Originally posted by dontreally

Left is generally synonymous with liberal, socialist, humanistic, etc, while right is synonymous with conservative, democratic and traditional; wherever your own beliefs fall, you yourself fall into one of these categories.

The right is synonymous with democracy and the left isn't? I have no idea where you get that.

Originally posted by dontreally
Lastly, as you said, the left is seen as the more humane; wouldn't this itself be a reasoning for the left launching a war, as opposed to the right? Wouldn't Obama receive more support than Romney, since Obama is already more liked and respected then the right?

I will agree that Obama has pacified the Left and gotten away with things (like 5 times as many drone strikes as Bush in half the time) that McCain would have been crucified for. But no matter who is in office, another war is coming. The POTIS (Puppet of the Illuminati States) is nothing more than a symbolic figurehead.

Originally posted by dontreally
In my opinion, if you're a political scientist, it would make a hell of a lot more sense, domestically, for Obama to do something so unpopular in American eyes then for the right to do it; there might still be opposition and
protestation, but not as much as there would be if Romney were to do it.

You are missing the flipside of the coin which is if Obama goes to war, the Right will criticize it. Again, we see the Left vs. Right division tactic at work.

reply to post by shaluach

The right is synonymous with democracy and the left isn't? I have no idea where you get that.

Unless you conflate socialism with democracy, the right tends to support democratic ideals more than the left.

It should go without saying that my codification of right-left is a generalization.

Romney has stated that containment of Iran as a nuclear power is not the way to deal with the situation and he believes, as president , he can choose to use military action. He is not accepting a nuclear Iran.

Originally posted by dontreally
Unless you conflate socialism with democracy, the right tends to support democratic ideals more than the left.

It should go without saying that my codification of right-left is a generalization.

And you are proving my point over and over. For one, your argument is logically fallacious because what you are doing is defining something one way (The Left is socialist) and then using that definition to support your argument. It's circular. The American Left is not "socialist." And socialism CAN go hand-in-hand with democracy. There's a whole movement known as Democrat Socialism, in fact.

Systematically, though, the Right is "Conservativism" and Conservative/Right-wing values are typically synonymous with fascism. So would you equate Fascism with democracy?

America is a "democracy" and democracy comes with "choices." There is absolutely no way that you can say that either side of the coin is against democracy or that one is more "democratic" than the other when they both exist in a democracy.

That's just not true. The "issues" and people's opinions on them can be very real. TPTB exploit those differences and keep people at each other's throats over these issues so they can continue to manipulate the world and enforce their own agenda. And when the Illuminati seizes control, we'll all be caught off-guard because we were bickering over gay marriage, welfare, or immigration.

So to be clear, you don't think there are any legitimate politicans, journalists, media figures or social acitivists, who are genuinely motivated by ideology, and not some conspiratorial agenda?

To make things clearer, the 'higher agenda' which transcends the right-left paradigm originates in the left; it is a
SOCIALIST agenda, fueled by Platonist ideals, which the left and some members (generally the very successful and powerful ones) subscribe to; I don't think any honest person, assessing the Republican party, can't be a little disheveled by bohemian grove and what they do there. The contradiction between their outer image of christian conservative verses the pagan imagery of sylphs, pan and statues of giant owls, is too great to be taken lightly; and only a complete ignoramus can look at that and explain it away as good ol' college fun, as if there isn't a deeper, mystical-metaphysical significance to those statues, the overall greco-pagan tone, which is in obvious opposition to truly conservative Judeo-Christian values.

I do not deny a conspiracy. I wouldn't post here if I didn't believe there was a conspiracy. But that doesn't mean there aren't people on the other side working the system struggling to take control from the establishment. There ARE real people trying to make changes, who have no choice but to join the ranks of the Republicans in order to change the direction of the party.

Anti-zionism is not anti-semitism.

I'm not saying anti-zionists hate Jews. To hate Jews is to be an anti-semite. But the reasons people have overall for opposing the Jewish state are unreasonable, which forces people to surmise that anti-zionism, something which caught steam after the 6 day war, is motivated, from the highest levels, by people who intend to transfer the feelings usually associated with Jew hatred to Israel hatred; in essence, the misunderstanding, ignorance and propaganda - which creates such a widespread misunderstanding - effects the same end that anti-semitism accomplished before WWII. To hate Israel, to seek its destruction, what do you think that would accomplish? To support Iran, to turn a blind eye to their nuclear program and insist, quixotically, that there is nothing to fear, how is that any different from the same sanguine approach taken towards Hitler by the allied powers, or Germany's own Jews, ignoring Hitlers very explicit intentions as stated in Mein Kampf, or in the papers?? If Iran were to nuke Israel, would anyone here feel a shred of guilt for their previous support for Iran? If a terrorist organization got a hold of a nuke and nuked one of Israel's port cities, would any of you care? It seems to me that people here aren't being very reasonable. Already, there are complaints about the holocaust; either that we hear too much about it (and considering the history, the Jews have EVERY FRIGGEN RIGHT to bring up the holocaust, when time and again for the last 2200 years they have been murdered by gentiles; whether of the pagan, secular persuasion, christian, cossak, communist, nazi, or islamist) or some are so crass as to say that it has been exaggerated or didn't even happen, ignoring the vast evidence, ignoring the Nazi parties rabid Jew hatred...

reply to post by shaluach

Systematically, though, the Right is "Conservativism" and Conservative/Right-wing values are typically synonymous with fascism. So would you equate Fascism with democracy?

One of the definite extremes of conservative thinking is 'fascism', but fascism, in the sense of imposing one's views on another, is just as present, perhaps even more basic, to socialism (i.e. China, Russia, etc) then to traditional, religious thinking.

America is a "democracy" and democracy comes with "choices." There is absolutely no way that you can say that either side of the coin is against democracy or that one is more "democratic" than the other when they both exist in a democracy.

.

That is where you and I differ. I'm sure you think in a democracy an islamist party can flourish; Hamas, for instance, was 'democratically elected', but after elected, do you think Hamas will foster the feelings that allow democracy to prosper? Of course not. The only way Hamas is going out is a popular uprising.

Same thing in a socialist country. After they come to power, and they begin to systematically institutionalize their secular, atheistic agenda (which tends to be their thing), do you think the people will be offered the chance to effectively change the direction of the country?

There's no such thing as true democracy. But the right is best equipped to meet the standards set by the American constitution.

Originally posted by dontreally

So to be clear, you don't think there are any legitimate politicans, journalists, media figures or social acitivists, who are genuinely motivated by ideology, and not some conspiratorial agenda?

I didn't say that. Can you please stop crafting strawmen to attack?

Originally posted by dontreally
There's no such thing as true democracy. But the right is best equipped to meet the standards set by the American constitution.

And you have proven again and again that you are partisan and buy into one side of the coin, or one wing of the same vulture. You buy into this Right vs. Left crap and truly think that one side is better than another. You are extremely biased.

And to be honest you keep changing the topic and trying to change what you originally said. I can't even keep up with what you are saying anymore, nor do I see a point to most of your responses. So I'm through wasting my time. If you ever want to get back on topic, you can let me know.